Saul Shiffman1, Lauren Terhorst2. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, 130 N. Bellefield Ave., Suite 510, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. shiffman@pitt.edu. 2. Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: One third of US smokers are intermittent smokers (ITS) who do not smoke daily. Unlike daily smokers (DS), whose smoking is negatively reinforced by withdrawal relief, ITS may be motivated by immediate positive reinforcement. In contrast, incentive salience theory posits hypothesis that "liking" of drug effects fades in established users, such as DS. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare ITS' and DS' hedonic responses to smoking. METHODS: Participants were 109 ITS (smoking 4-27 days/month) and 52 DS (smoking daily 5-25 cigarettes/day), aged ≥21, smoking ≥3 years, and not quitting smoking. For 3 weeks, participants engaged in ecological momentary assessment, carrying an electronic diary that asked them to rate their most recent smoking experience on 0-100 visual analog scales (satisfaction, enjoyment [averaged as "pleasure"], feeling sick, feeling a "rush," enjoying upper respiratory sensations, and immediate craving relief). Hierarchical random effect regression analyzed 4476 ratings. RESULTS: ITS found smoking pleasurable (mean = 69.7 ± 1.7 [SE]) but significantly less so than DS did (77.6 ± 2.3; p < 0.006). ITS also reported more aversive response (ITS 18.2 ± 1.4, DS 11.6 ± 2.0; p < 0.007). Even though ITS are more likely to smoke at bars/restaurants, when drinking alcohol, or when others were present, they did not report more pleasure in these settings (compared to DS). More extensive smoking experience was unrelated to craving or smoking effects among DS, but predicted greater craving, greater pleasure, and less aversion among ITS. CONCLUSIONS: The findings were largely inconsistent with incentive-salience models of drug use.
RATIONALE: One third of US smokers are intermittent smokers (ITS) who do not smoke daily. Unlike daily smokers (DS), whose smoking is negatively reinforced by withdrawal relief, ITS may be motivated by immediate positive reinforcement. In contrast, incentive salience theory posits hypothesis that "liking" of drug effects fades in established users, such as DS. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare ITS' and DS' hedonic responses to smoking. METHODS:Participants were 109 ITS (smoking 4-27 days/month) and 52 DS (smoking daily 5-25 cigarettes/day), aged ≥21, smoking ≥3 years, and not quitting smoking. For 3 weeks, participants engaged in ecological momentary assessment, carrying an electronic diary that asked them to rate their most recent smoking experience on 0-100 visual analog scales (satisfaction, enjoyment [averaged as "pleasure"], feeling sick, feeling a "rush," enjoying upper respiratory sensations, and immediate craving relief). Hierarchical random effect regression analyzed 4476 ratings. RESULTS: ITS found smoking pleasurable (mean = 69.7 ± 1.7 [SE]) but significantly less so than DS did (77.6 ± 2.3; p < 0.006). ITS also reported more aversive response (ITS 18.2 ± 1.4, DS 11.6 ± 2.0; p < 0.007). Even though ITS are more likely to smoke at bars/restaurants, when drinking alcohol, or when others were present, they did not report more pleasure in these settings (compared to DS). More extensive smoking experience was unrelated to craving or smoking effects among DS, but predicted greater craving, greater pleasure, and less aversion among ITS. CONCLUSIONS: The findings were largely inconsistent with incentive-salience models of drug use.
Authors: Thomas M Piasecki; Seungmin Jahng; Phillip K Wood; Brandon M Robertson; Amee J Epler; Nikole J Cronk; John W Rohrbaugh; Andrew C Heath; Saul Shiffman; Kenneth J Sher Journal: J Abnorm Psychol Date: 2011-08
Authors: Saul Shiffman; Michael S Dunbar; Thomas R Kirchner; Xiaoxue Li; Hilary A Tindle; Stewart J Anderson; Sarah M Scholl; Stuart G Ferguson Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2012-11-11 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Arpana Agrawal; Pamela A F Madden; Kathleen K Bucholz; Andrew C Heath; Michael T Lynskey Journal: Addiction Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Saul Shiffman; Michael S Dunbar; Xiaoxue Li; Sarah M Scholl; Hilary A Tindle; Stewart J Anderson; Stuart G Ferguson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Roger L Papke; Indraneel Bhattacharyya; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Ingyin Moe; Sam Glatman Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Cynthia A Conklin; F Joseph McClernon; Elizabeth J Vella; Christopher J Joyce; Ronald P Salkeld; Craig S Parzynski; Lee Bennett Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Andrew C Harris; Peter Muelken; Yayi Swain; Mary Palumbo; Vipin Jain; Maciej L Goniewicz; Irina Stepanov; Mark G LeSage Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Arit Harvanko; Kimberly A Koester; Gideon St Helen; Sarah Olson; Hyunjin Cindy Kim; Pamela M Ling Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Terry Frank Pechacek; Pratibha Nayak; Paul Slovic; Scott R Weaver; Jidong Huang; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Sebastiano Sciarretta; Christopher Bullen; Cristina Nocella; Francesco Violi; Lorenzo Loffredo; Pasquale Pignatelli; Ludovica Perri; Mariangela Peruzzi; Antonino G M Marullo; Elena De Falco; Isotta Chimenti; Vittoria Cammisotto; Valentina Valenti; Flaminia Coluzzi; Elena Cavarretta; Albino Carrizzo; Francesco Prati; Roberto Carnevale; Giacomo Frati Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Andrew C Harris; John R Smethells; Mary Palumbo; Maciej Goniewicz; Mark G LeSage Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.390