Effects of initial abstinence and programmed lapses on the relative reinforcing effects of cigarette smoking

Abstract

Fifty-eight smokers received abstinence-contingent monetary payments for 1 (n=15) or 14 (n=3) days. Those who received contingent payments for 14 days also received 0, 1, or 8 experimenter-delivered cigarette puffs on 5 evenings. The relative reinforcing effects of smoking were assessed in a 3-hr session on the final study day, when participants made 20 choices between smoking or money. The reinforcement contingencies exerted robust control over smoking, and programmed smoking lapses produced few discernible effects. These results further illustrate the robust control that reinforcement contingencies can exert over cigarette smoking and suggest that any effects of lapses on the relative reinforcing effects of smoking are modest under conditions involving abstinence-contingent reinforcement contingencies.

Figure 1

Mean change in breath CO from start to finish of the programmed lapse sessions is shown for each lapse condition (14C 0-puff, 14C 1-puff, 14C 8-puff). Asterisks denote a significant increase in mean CO level from pre- to postlapse with p < .05. Individual points represent mean change in breath CO for individual participants.

Figure 2

Mean breath CO on Days 1 to 14 is shown for the 14C and 1C conditions. Vertical dotted line between Days 13 and 14 denotes change from noncontingent to contingent payment in the 1C condition. Horizontal dotted line denotes the abstinence cutoff at 4 ppm. Vertical bars represent ± SEM. Asterisks denote significant day-specific differences between groups for p < .05.

Figure 3

Shown are the number of CO samples obtained and their abstinence status across 42 consecutive CO monitoring sessions for each of the 58 participants by condition. Each horizontal line represents the breath CO monitoring results for a different individual across the consecutive sessions of the study. The solid bold portions of lines indicate that the participant provided a breath CO sample that was below the abstinence criterion at that visit. The solid nonbold portions of the lines indicate that the participant provided a breath CO sample that was above the abstinence criterion (positive for smoking) at that visit. A break in a line shows when a participant failed to provide a breath CO sample, which was counted as positive for smoking in other analyses and caused the payment schedule to reset for the next sample that was provided that met the abstinence criterion. Participants are arranged in order of abstinence rates, with those showing the fewest negative samples at the bottom and those with the most negative samples at the top.

Figure 4

Visual-analogue scale self-report ratings of “ease of abstaining” are shown for the 14C and 1C conditions. Vertical dotted line between Days 13 and 14 denotes change from noncontingent to contingent payment in the 1C condition. Vertical bars represent ± SEM. Asterisks denote significant day-specific differences between groups for p < .05.

Figure 5

Shown are mean number of choices of the smoking option made during the 3-hr smoking preference session for each experimental condition. The top panel shows results for all participants (p  =  .17) and the bottom panel presents results for only those participants who were classified as complete abstainers (p  =  .12). Individual points represent number of choices for individual participants.

Figure 6

Shown are the percentages of participants for each experimental condition who chose the smoking option at least once during the 3-hr smoking-preference session. The top panel shows results for all participants (p > .10) and results in the bottom panel reflect only those participants who were classified as complete abstainers (p  =  .10). Vertical bars represent ± SEM.