Craving in Intermittent and Daily Smokers During Ad Libitum Smoking

Shiffman, Saul; Dunbar, Michael Stephen; Li, Xiaoxue; Scholl, Sarah; Tindle, Hilary A.; Anderson, Stewart J.; Ferguson, Stuart G.

doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu023

Cited by 22 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also consistent with our previously reported finding that ITS smoking is more responsive to craving than DS smoking (Shiffman, et al 2014b): ITS may experience craving, and hence smoke, when in the presence of certain stimuli, but in the absence of such stimuli they do not experience a drive to smoke. In a sense, strong stimulus control over use may represent another kind of dependence that keeps users of psychoactive drugs from easily stopping.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Stimulus control in intermittent and daily smokers.

Shiffman

Dunbar

Ferguson

2015

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many adult smokers are intermittent smokers (ITS) who do not smoke daily. Prior analyses suggested that, compared to daily smokers (DS), ITS’ smoking was, on average, more linked to particular situations, such as alcohol consumption. However, such particular associations assessed in common across subjects may underestimate stimulus control over smoking, which may vary across persons, due to different conditioning histories. We quantify such idiographic stimulus control using separate multivariable logistic regressions for each subject to estimate how well the subject’s smoking could be predicted from a panel of situational characteristics, without requiring that other subjects respond to the same stimuli. Subjects were 212 ITS (smoking 4-27 days/month) and 194 DS (5-30 cigarettes daily). Using ecological momentary assessment, subjects monitored situational antecedents of smoking for 3 weeks, recording each cigarette on an electronic diary. Situational characteristics were assessed in a random subset of smoking occasions (n = 21,539), and contrasted with assessments of non-smoking occasions (n = 26,930) obtained by beeping subjects at random. ITS showed significantly stronger stimulus control than DS across all context domains: mood, location, activity, social setting, consumption, smoking context, and time of day. Mood and smoking context showed the strongest influence on ITS smoking, food and alcohol consumption the least. ITS’ smoking was under very strong stimulus control; significantly more so than DS’, but DS’ smoking also showed considerable stimulus control. Stimulus control may be an important influence in maintaining smoking and making quitting difficult for all smokers, but especially among ITS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Stimulus control in intermittent and daily smokers.

Shiffman

Dunbar

Ferguson

2015

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, ITS, too, “like” smoking, if less so than DS. Other data show that they also experience craving, though they do so primarily in the presence of cues that trigger their smoking (Shiffman et al 2014a). Unlike DS, they experience little craving between bouts of smoking (Shiffman et al 2014a), even when they abstain for days at a time (Shiffman et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other data show that they also experience craving, though they do so primarily in the presence of cues that trigger their smoking (Shiffman et al 2014a). Unlike DS, they experience little craving between bouts of smoking (Shiffman et al 2014a), even when they abstain for days at a time (Shiffman et al 2015). However, the ITS with more extensive smoking histories showed increased craving, which is consistent with Robinson and Berridge's (2003) account of the relationship between cumulative drug use experience and “wanting.”.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Incentive sensitization theory predicts (Berridge et al 2009) that wanting or craving would increase with increased drug use, even more so than liking or pleasure decreases. Previous analyses of EMA data from DS and ITS established that DS, who have often smoked hundreds of thousands of cigarettes (Berridge et al 2009), do indeed report more craving than ITS, even between cigarettes during unrestrained ad lib smoking (Shiffman et al 2014a). Conversely, ITS show more modest levels of craving, even when abstaining for days at a time (Shiffman et al 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intermittent and daily smokers’ subjective responses to smoking

Shiffman

Terhorst

2017

Psychopharmacology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 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 three 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 effects regression analyzed 4,476 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.

show abstract

“…18,37 Briefly, participants were asked to record each time they smoked a cigarette (event-based sampling); on a randomlyselected subset of occasions (4-5 per day), participants were asked a series of questions about the situation they were in. Further, to compare participants' situations when they were not smoking (signalbased sampling), participants were also "beeped" 4-5 times a day at random and asked to complete parallel assessments of nonsmoking situations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and Stimulus Control of Smoking Behavior

Ferguson

Frandsen

Dunbar

et al. 2015

Nicotine & Tobacco Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Gender differences in smoking behavior have been proposed to account for poorer outcomes among women attempting to quit. Specifically, it has been suggested that women's smoking behavior is less motivated by nicotine-seeking and more driven by environmental cues. To date, however, few real-world studies have examined the hypothesis that women's smoking is under greater stimulus control. Methods: One hundred and ninety four daily smokers (men = 107; women = 87) completed 3 weeks of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) monitoring that provided data on real-world smoking behavior by reporting on situational contexts shown by previous research to influence smoking behavior (including social setting, cigarette availability, alcohol consumption, and mood). Results: Analyses of particular cues found few gender differences; however, men's smoking increased to a greater extent compared with women's when they were with others who were smoking. Idiographic analyses that allow individual subjects to have different directions of linkage to situational cues also were conducted to assess how predictable subjects' smoking was from a range of contextual characteristics. Compared with women, men's smoking was significantly more closely tied to food/alcohol consumption and tended to be more closely tied to social context. No other gender differences were found. Conclusions: EMA analyses suggest that men and women are similarly influenced by cues, including mood. Where there were gender differences, it was men rather than women whose smoking behavior was more influenced by cues. The data contradict the hypothesis that women's smoking is more influenced by cues.

show abstract

Craving in Intermittent and Daily Smokers During Ad Libitum Smoking

Abstract: This study aimed to assess average and peak craving intensity among nondaily intermittent smokers (ITS) in smoking episodes and when not smoking compared to that of daily smokers (DS).

Cited by 22 publications

References 38 publications

Stimulus control in intermittent and daily smokers.

Stimulus control in intermittent and daily smokers.

Intermittent and daily smokers’ subjective responses to smoking

Gender and Stimulus Control of Smoking Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About