Abstract
The maintenance of a characteristic level of nicotine in a smoker's body is referred to as nicotine regulation. Considerable research has examined this question of whether smokers regulate nicotine intake. This is because nicotine regulation raises the question of whether smokers who, to decrease their intake of tar, switch to low tar/low nicotine cigarettes will increase the number and/or intensity of cigarettes smoked. Although the results of studies examining nicotine regulation are reported as generally consistent, considerable variability exists across these analyses such that the health hazards of smoking low tar/nicotine cigarettes remains uncertain. In the present analysis, these studies were analyzed to ascertain whether a behavioral-economic interpretation could better quantify the effects of changing nicotine yield on individuals' nicotine and smoke consumption. Specifically, 17 nicotine-regulation studies were reanalyzed using a unit-price analysis (i.e., cost-benefit analysis). The reanalysis showed less variability across regulation studies than previously reported; a positively-decelerating demand curve was found across most studies, consistent with previous unitprice analyses of food- and drug-maintained behavior. The benefits of this reanalysis versus the traditional regulation interpretation are that the behavioral economics approach: 1) brings unity to a variable set of data, 2) shows a nonlinear relationship, previously considered to be linear, between nicotine consumption and nicotine yield, 3) shows that nicotine yields higher, and not lower, than the smoker's usual brand decrease smoke consumption and thus decreases consumption of the harmful agents in tobacco, 4) better quantifies the data and provides a more parsimonious interpretation that generalizes to other drugs and food-maintained behavior in humans and nonhumans and, 5) integrates behavioral and pharmacological factors that control the consumption of reinforcers. These results suggest the value of behavioral economics in the study of consumptive behaviors and clinically suggest, in agreement with the studies contained herein, that decreasing the smoker's usual nicotine yield can have potential healthrisks for smokers who are unable to stop smoking.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashton H, Stepney R, Thompson JW (1979) Self-titration by cigarette smokers. BJM 2:357–360
Benowitz NL, Peyton J III, Yu L, Talcott R, Hall S, Jones RT (1986) Reduced tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide exposure while smooking ultralow- but not low-yield cigarettes. JAMA 256:241–246
Bickel WK, DeGrandpre RJ, Higgins ST, Hughes JR (1990) Behavioral economics of drug self-administration. I. Functional equivalence of response requirement and drug dose. Life Sci 47:1501–1510
Bickel WK, DeGrandpre RJ, Hughes JR, Higgins ST (1991) Behavioral economics of drug self-administration. II. A unit-price analysis of cigarette smoking. J Exp Anal Behav 55:145–154
Bickel WK, Hughes JR, DeGrandpre RJ, Higgins ST, Rizutto P. (1992) Behavioral economics of drug self-administration. IV. Own-price and cross-price analysis of concurrent access to coffee and cigarettes. Psychopharmacology (in press)
Chamberlain AT, Higenbottam TW (1985) Nicotine and cigarette smoking: an alternative hypothesis. Medical Hypothesis 17:285–297
Creighton DE, Lewis PH (1978) The effect of different cigarettes on human smoking patterns. In: Thornton RE (ed) Smoking behaviour: physiological and psychological influences. Churchill Livingston, Edinburgh
Frith CD (1971) The effect of varying the nicotine content of cigarettes on human smoking behaviour. Psychopharmacologia 19:188–192
Goldfarb TL, Gritz ER, Jarvik ME, Stolerman IP (1976) Reaction to cigarettes as a function of nicotine and “tar.” Clin Pharmacol Ther 19(6):767–772
Gori GB (1976) Low-risk cigarettes: a prescription. Science 194:1243–1246
Gori GB, Lynch CJ (1978) Toward less hazardous cigarettes. JAMA 240:1255–1259
Griffiths RR, Bigelow GE, Henningfield JE (1980) Similarities in animal and human drug-taking behavior. In: Mello NK (ed) Advances in substance abuse, vol 1. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 1–90
Griffiths RR, Henningfield JE, Bigelow GE (1982) Human cigarette smoking: Manipulation of number of puff per bout, interbout interval and nicotine dose. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 220:256–265
Gritz ER (1980) Smoking behavior and tobacco abuse. In: Mello NK (ed) Advances in substance abuse. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 91–158
Gust SW, Pickens RW (1982) Does cigarette nicotine yield affect puff volume? Clin Pharmacol Ther 32:418–422
Haley NJ, Sepkovic DW, Hoffmann D, Wynder EL (1985) Cigarette smoking as a risk for cardiovascular disease. Part VI. Compensation with nicotine availability as a single variable. Clin Pharmacol Ther 38:164–170
Henningfield JE (1984) Behavioral pharmacology of cigarette smoking. In: Thompson T, Dews PB, Barrett JE (eds) Advances in behavioral pharmacology, vol 4. Academic Press, Orlando, FL
Henningfield JE, Griffiths RR (1980) Effects of ventilated cigarette holders on cigarette smoking by humans. Psychopharmacology 68:115–119
Herning RI, Jones RT, Bachman J, Hines AH (1981) Puff volume increases when low-nicotine cigarettes are smoked. BrMJ 283:187–189
Hill P, Marquardt H (1980) Plasma urine changes after smoking different brands of cigarettes. Clin Pharmacol Ther 27:652–658
Hursh SR (1984) Behavioral economics. J Exp Anal Behav 42:435–452
Hursh SR, Raslear D, Shurtleff R, Bauman R, Simmons L (1988) A cost-benefit analysis of demand for food. J Exp Anal Behav 50:419–440
Jarvik ME, Popek P, Schneider NG, Baer-Weiss V, Gritz ER (1978) Can cigarette size and nicotine content influence smoking and puffing rates? Psychopharmacology 58:303–306
Lea SEG, Roper TJ (1977) Demand for food on fixed-ratio schedules as a function of the quality of concurrently available reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 27:371–380
Lemaire GA, Meisch RA (1985) Oral drug self-administration in rhesus monkeys: Interactions between drug amount and fixed-ratio size. J Exp Anal Behav 44:377–389
McMorrow MJ, Foxx RM (1983) Nicotine's role in smoking: an analysis of nicotine regulation. Psychol Bull 93:302–327
Moss RA, Prue DM (1982) Research on nicotine regulation. Behav Ther 13:31–46
Russell MA, Sutton SR, Feyerabend C, Saloojee Y (1980) Smokers' response to shortened cigarettes: dose reduction without dilution of tobacco smoke. Clin Pharmacol Ther 27:210–218
Russell MA, Sutton SR, Iyer C, Feyerabend C, Vesey CJ (1982) Long-term switching to low-tar low-nicotine cigarettes. Br J Addict 77:145–158
Russell MA, Wilson C, Patel UA, Cole PV, Feyerabend C (1973) Comparison of effect on tobacco consumption and carbon monoxide absorption of changing to high and low nicotine cigarettes. BMJ 4:512–516
Russell MA, Wilson C, Patel VA, Feyerabend C, Cole PV (1975) Plasma nicotine levels after smoking cigarette with high, medium, and low nicotine yields. BMJ 2:414–416
Samuelson PA, Nordhaus WD (1985) Economics, 12th edn. McGraw Hill, New York
Schacter S (1978) Pharmacological and psychological determinants of smoking. Ann Int Med 88:104–114
Stepney R (1980) Consumption of cigarettes of reduced tar and nicotine delivery. Br J Addict 75:81–88
Stepney R (1981) Would a medium-nicotine, low-tar cigarette be less hazardous to health? BMJ 283:1292–1296
Turner JAM, Sillett RW, Ball KP (1974) Some effects of changing to low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes. Lancet II 2:737–739
Zacny JP, Stitzer ML (1988) Cigarette brand-switching: Effects of smoke exposure and smoking behavior. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 246[2]:619–627
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
DeGrandpre, R.J., Bickel, W.K., Hughes, J.R. et al. Behavioral economics of drug self-administration. Psychopharmacology 108, 1–10 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02245277
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02245277