Journal of Abnormal Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association

2007, Vol. 116, No. 3, 543–553 0021-843X/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.116.3.543

The Acute Effects of Nicotine on Positive and Negative Affect in

Adolescent Smokers
Jon D. Kassel, Daniel P. Evatt, Justin E. Greenstein, Margaret C. Wardle, Marisa C. Yates, and
Jennifer C. Veilleux
University of Illinois at Chicago

Although adolescent cigarette smoking remains a critical public health concern, little is known about the
reinforcing mechanisms governing smoking in this vulnerable population. To assess predictions derived
from both positive and negative reinforcement models of drug use, the authors measured the acute effects
of nicotine, as administered via tobacco cigarettes, on both positive and negative affect in a group of 15-
to 18-year-old smokers. A matched group of nonsmokers served as a comparison group. Findings
revealed that whereas adolescents who smoked a cigarette experienced reductions in both positive and
negative affect, the observed reductions in negative affect were moderated by nicotine content of the
cigarette (high yield vs. denicotinized), level of nicotine dependence, level of baseline craving, and
smoking expectancies pertinent to negative affect regulation. Nonsmokers experienced no change in
affect over the 10-min assessment period, and no interaction effects were observed for positive affect.
Overall, the findings conform to a negative reinforcement model of nicotine effects and strongly suggest
that, even among young light smokers, nicotine dependence and resultant withdrawal symptomatology
may serve as motivating factors governing smoking behavior.

Keywords: adolescent smoking, nicotine, affect, withdrawal, dependence

Adolescent cigarette smoking remains a significant public
health concern. As many as 80% of tobacco users begin smoking
before they are 18. Whereas adolescent smoking in the United
States appears to have peaked in the mid-1990s (Johnston,
O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2005b), recent data suggest
that the rate of decline in adolescents’ use of cigarettes has been
decelerating over the past several years (Johnston, O’Malley,
Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2005a). In fact, among eighth graders,
smoking rates have plateaued, potentially a bad sign for future
smoking trends among young adults. In short, if the trend in early
initiation of cigarette smoking continues, approximately 5 million
children who are living today will die prematurely because they
began to smoke cigarettes during adolescence. As significant as
this public health problem is, however, surprisingly little is known
Jon D. Kassel, Daniel P. Evatt, Justin E. Greenstein, Margaret C.
Wardle, Marisa C. Yates, and Jennifer C. Veilleux, Department of Psy-
chology, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Portions of this article were presented at the 11th annual meeting of the
Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, Prague, Czechoslovakia,
March 2005, and the 13th annual meeting of the Society for Research on
Nicotine and Tobacco, Austin, Texas, February 2007.
This research was supported by the Ove Ferno Award for Innovative
Research on Nicotine and Tobacco by the Society for Research on Nicotine
and Tobacco and by Pharmacia and Upjohn. Preparation of this article was
also made possible, in part, by National Cancer Institute Grant
1PO1CA98262 and by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcohol-
ism Grant 5RO1AA12240-04.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jon D.
Kassel, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1007
West Harrison Street, Behavioral Sciences Building, Room 1009, Chicago,
IL 60607. E-mail: jkassel@uic.edu
543
about the motivational processes subserving adolescent smoking.
Given the notable health risks posed by the use of tobacco,
research on the determinants of adolescent smoking is urgently
needed, as it can inform prevention, treatment, and policy at
multiple levels.
Although there has been some problem in clearly determining
the underlying mechanisms that explain why tobacco smoking is
reinforcing among adolescents, there is strong reason to believe
that most adult smokers smoke, at least in part, as a way of
regulating affect. Indeed, some of the most influential models of
addictive behavior have emphasized the importance of aversive
affective states precipitating drug use, coupled with the notion that
drug use assuages such emotional distress (e.g., Siegel, 1983;
Wikler, 1973; see Kassel et al., 2006, for a discussion of negative
affect [NA] and addiction). Such sentiments have also been well
articulated within the stress– coping (Wills & Shiffman, 1985) and
self-medication models (Khantzian, 1997) of substance use. Con-
sistent with these conceptualizations, a large literature on smoking
motives (Shiffman, 1993) and smoking expectancies (Brandon,
Juliano, & Copeland, 1999) reliably demonstrates that the majority
of adult smokers attribute their smoking to its reputed ability to
calm them when stressed and, more generally, reduce NA (e.g.,
Ikard, Green, & Horn, 1969; McKennell, 1970; Spielberger, 1986;
see Kassel, Stroud, & Paronis, 2003). Thus, smoking as an anxi-
olytic tool emerges as the most widely endorsed motive among
adult smokers, particularly among those who are nicotine depen-
dent (Shiffman, 1993).
However, less is known about the motives governing adolescent
cigarette smoking. Although it is commonly thought that early
smoking is governed more by peer and social factors (e.g., Fergu-
son et al., 1992; Wang, Fitzhugh, Eddy, Fu, & Turner, 1997) than
by attempts at mood regulation, there are relatively few data to
544 KASSEL ET AL.
support these assumptions. In fact, several studies have suggested
that motives linked to affect regulation may take on significance
earlier than previously believed (Dozois, Farrow, & Miser, 1995;
Johnson et al., 2005; McNeill, Jarvis, & West, 1987; see also
Chassin, Presson, Rose, & Sherman, 2007, for an interesting take
on adolescents’ views of nicotine addiction). In particular, these
studies have suggested that a significant proportion of adolescents
attribute their smoking to relaxation and anxiolytic motives. How-
ever, we are unaware of any studies of adolescent smokers that
have assessed the acute effects of smoking on emotional response
under controlled laboratory conditions. Such an approach is critical
to shedding light on the processes that subserve smoking behavior
among adolescents. As such, the primary goal of the present study
is to assess the acute effects of nicotine, as administered via
tobacco cigarettes, on both positive affect (PA) and NA in a
sample of young smokers.
Do Adolescents Smoke to Regulate Affect?
The pathways to becoming a smoker are clearly complex and
governed by a host of genetic, social, pharmacological, and psy-
chological determinants (Jamner et al., 2003; Kassel, Weinstein,
Skitch, Veilleux, & Mermelstein, 2005). In fact, social factors,
such as peer affiliations and peer socialization (e.g., Oetting &
Donnermeyer, 1998), have emerged as perhaps the most potent
and reliable predictors of smoking initiation and experimentation.
Yet there is also reason to believe that among the many adoles-
cents who try cigarettes, those who progress to regular smoking
status, as well as nicotine dependence, are more likely to report
heightened levels of stress and NA (Chassin, Presson, Sherman,
Corty, & Olshavsky, 1984; Stein, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1996) as
well as experience numerous manifestations of psychopathology
associated with affective distress, including depression (e.g.,
Brown, Lewinsohn, Seeley, & Wagner, 1996; Escobedo, Reddy, &
Giovino, 1998; Koval, Pederson, Mills, McGrady, & Carvajal,
2000) and anxiety (e.g., Patton et al., 1996; Sonntag, Wittchen,
Hofler, Kessler, & Stein, 2000). Correspondingly, it becomes
critical to distinguish the processes that govern smoking initiation
and experimentation from those that underlie progression to nic-
otine dependence (Colby, Tiffany, Shiffman, & Niaura, 2000;
Kassel, 2000; Shadel, Shiffman, Niaura, Nichter, & Abrams,
2000).
On the basis of findings from both cross-sectional and longitu-
dinal studies, many researchers have inferred that because adoles-
cents who experience significant levels of affective distress are
more likely to smoke, they must do so because smoking necessar-
ily alleviates NA. However, as we have argued elsewhere (Kassel
& Hankin, 2006; Kassel et al, 2003), one must be careful not to
instantiate causal (within-subject) mechanisms on the basis of
results derived from cross-sectional (between-subjects) analyses.
Although there is a dearth of empirical work devoted to answering
the question of whether smoking genuinely influences emotional
response in adolescents, several studies have offered some insight
into the motives associated with adolescent smoking. Although
they are not a direct indicator of nicotine dependence, the subjec-
tive effects experienced by smokers likely reflect the role of
nicotine (and other constituents of tobacco smoke) in governing
smoking behavior. For example, McNeill et al. (1987) found that
82% of a sample of 170 female adolescent smokers reported
experiencing at least one of five specified subjective effects of
smoking. Feeling calmer was the most frequently endorsed effect,
and daily smokers were more likely to report this than nondaily
smokers (64% vs. 38%, respectively). Moreover, the likelihood of
experiencing at least one withdrawal symptom when trying to quit
was greater among those who reported feeling calmer when smok-
ing (84% vs. 40%, respectively). Other subjective effects of smok-
ing received relatively little endorsement, with 34% experiencing
dizziness and lightheadedness, 15% describing feeling sick, 1%
feeling “high,” and 8% experiencing greater alertness.
The importance attributed to relaxation motives is echoed in
findings by Dozois et al. (1995) and Nichter, Nichter, Vuckovic,
Quintero, and Ritenbaugh (1997), who similarly found that smok-
ing to relax and stress reduction were commonly reported motives
among adolescent smoking initiates. Recent studies by Johnson et
al. (2003, 2005) also point to the significant endorsement of
emotional reinforcement motives, as a large proportion of adoles-
cent smokers attributed their smoking to its ability to facilitate
affect regulation. Correspondingly, Stevens, Colwell, Smith, Rob-
inson, and McMillan (2005) found that the motive most frequently
endorsed by their sample of 721 adolescent smokers was smoking
in response to NA.1 Moreover, in support of previous findings
(Miller, Hemenway, & Rimm, 2000), this study revealed that
adolescents whose smoking was predominantly cued by NA were
significantly more likely to have future smoking intentions as well
as evidence significantly less self-efficacy to quit smoking, relative
to adolescents who reported other reasons for smoking.
Taken together, these studies strongly suggest that many—
perhaps even most—adolescents smoke both in response to and in
an effort to alleviate NA. However, although such findings may be
compelling, the conclusions that can ultimately be drawn from
them are limited because of the highly subjective and retrospective
nature of the data. Controlled laboratory studies would be useful to
determine whether smoking exerts genuine anxiolytic and NA-
reducing effects (although even controlled laboratory studies that
use self-report as the primary index of affect ultimately rely on
subjectivity as well). Although we acknowledge the ethical con-
straints associated with administration of nicotine to minors (Eis-
senberg & Balster, 2000; Moolchan & Mermelstein, 2002), such
information is nonetheless crucial to further our knowledge of the
effects of nicotine in new smokers.
Given the theoretical importance of appetitive, positive rein-
forcement processes in governing drug use (e.g., Stewart, de Wit,
& Eikelboom, 1984; Wise, 1998), it is also surprising that exam-
ination of the effects of smoking on PA has received such short
shrift in both the adolescent and the adult smoking literatures.
Indeed, understanding the extent to which drugs influence reward
processes as well as negative reinforcement mechanisms is critical
to delineating the motivational landscape underlying substance
abuse and dependence. Moreover, as there is now ample reason to
believe that PA and NA are independent constructs (not simply
opposite sides of a bipolar continuum; e.g., Watson & Tellegen,
1
It is important to note that whereas delineating the immediate precip-
itants, or cues, of smoking behavior is critical with respect to both theory
development and intervention efforts, such knowledge ultimately has no
bearing on the question of whether smoking genuinely reduces NA (see
Kassel et al., 2003, for a discussion of this issue).
 ADOLESCENT SMOKING
1985; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999), it becomes
important for drug researchers to examine the impact of drugs on
both PA and NA, as it is conceivable that drugs may exert
independent effects on each.
In sum, it is clear that many adolescent smokers attribute their
smoking to its alleged ability to reduce NA. However, we are
unaware of any previous laboratory investigations of nicotine’s
influence on affect in adolescent smokers (although see Corrigall,
Zack, Eissenberg, Belsito, & Scher, 2001, who assessed the effects
of smoking on other subjective parameters). Because expectancies
of NA reduction can actually influence nicotine’s effects on emo-
tional response to a stressor (Juliano & Brandon, 2002), we also
measured smoking expectancies relevant to affect regulation. On
the basis of the assumption that as individuals approach or have
reached a state of nicotine dependence, they are motivated to
smoke, in great part, to stave off or escape aversive symptoms of
nicotine withdrawal (e.g., NA; see Baker, Piper, McCarthy,
Majeskie, & Fiore, 2004), we also assessed nicotine dependence.
Correspondingly, we measured craving at the study’s outset,
guided by the belief that craving represents a critical component of
the withdrawal syndrome (Baker et al., 2004; Kassel & Shiffman,
1992) and, as such, complements the measure of nicotine depen-
dence. Finally, we incorporated a measure of PA because so little
is known about how nicotine may influence PA, or reward pro-
cesses, in adolescents. Thus, we examined the acute effects of
nicotine, as administered via tobacco cigarettes, on PA and NA in
a group of light-smoking adolescent smokers. Measures of smok-
ing expectancies, nicotine dependence, and craving were also
included as possible moderators of any observed nicotine effects.
Finally, we included a comparison group of nonsmokers who did
not receive nicotine.
Method
Participants
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at
the University of Illinois at Chicago. Given that most of the study
participants were under 18 years of age, such individuals also
provided signed parental consent forms, in addition to their own
signed assent. Because of the potentially sensitive nature of the
study (i.e., administration of nicotine via cigarettes to minors), we
took great care in ensuring that all participants and their parents
understood the objectives of the study and the requests being made
of the participants. No participant was mandated to smoke as a part
of study participation. Rather, adolescents were given the oppor-
tunity to smoke “as much or as little” of the cigarette as they so
desired.
Forty-five adolescent smokers and 27 nonsmokers were re-
cruited from the Chicago greater metropolitan area as part of their
participation in a larger study. Participants received either mone-
tary compensation ($45) or, if they were university students (n ⫽
35), course credit for their participation in this one-visit study.
Participants were between 15 and 18 years of age; to qualify as
smokers, they were required to have smoked for at least 4 weeks
and to smoke a minimum of one cigarette a week but no more than
five cigarettes a day on average. Nonsmokers must never have
smoked at all. Thus, our intention was to assess the acute effects of
nicotine in a relatively young, novice group of smokers as well as
545
to include a comparison group of nonsmokers. Participants who
qualified as smokers were then randomly assigned to one of two
experimental groups: a high-yield (HY) cigarette condition or a
denicotinized (DN) cigarette condition.
Cigarettes
To ensure standardization in nicotine and tar yields within the
respective nicotine conditions, we used research cigarettes (Ultra-
tech/Lifetech, Inc., Lafayette Hill, PA) containing .06 mg nicotine/
17.9 mg tar (DN) or 1.14 mg nicotine/15.9 mg tar (HY) nicotine
levels (cf. Juliano & Brandon, 2002). As previously reported by
Pickworth, Fant, Nelson, Rohrer, and Henningfield (1999), the DN
cigarettes deliver no appreciable amount of nicotine. All partici-
pants were led to believe that they would be receiving and smoking
a regular nicotine-yield cigarette.
Measures
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark,
& Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS is a widely used and psycho-
metrically valid self-report measure that assesses state (how one
feels “right now”) PA (10 items, e.g., “excited,” “alert,” “enthu-
siastic”) and NA (10 items, e.g., “upset,” “nervous,” “irritated”).
The scales have been shown to be highly internally consistent,
largely uncorrelated, and stable at appropriate levels over a
2-month time period. In the present study, the obtained reliability
(alpha) coefficients ranged from (across the two measurement
periods, respectively) .74 to .75 (NA) and from .85 to .90 (PA).
Smoking Expectancies Questionnaire (Wahl, Turner, Mermel-
stein, & Flay, 2005). The Smoking Expectancies Questionnaire
is a 13-item questionnaire that taps four domains of smoking
expectancies specifically applicable to adolescent smokers. For the
present analyses, we used only the Negative Affect Management
(NAM; 4 items; ␣ ⫽ .72) and the Boredom Relief (BR; 3 items;
␣ ⫽ .78) subscales, as these measures were most directly related to
our interest in nicotine’s effects on affect. The Smoking Expect-
ancies Questionnaire has demonstrated sound psychometric prop-
erties and predictive validity (Wahl et al., 2005).
Nicotine dependence. Nicotine dependence was assessed with
a modified version of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire
(MFTQ; Fagerstrom, 1978), specifically designed to measure de-
pendence in adolescent smokers (Prokhorov et al., 2000). Previous
findings indicate that this measure is valid and applicable to
adolescent smokers (Prokhorov et al., 2000; ␣ ⫽ .71).
Cigarette craving. Craving was measured with the six-item
Craving subscale of the Shiffman Jarvik Withdrawal Question-
naire (Shiffman & Jarvik, 1976). This self-report questionnaire has
been widely used and has excellent psychometric properties. In the
present study, we obtained an alpha coefficient of .82.
Other smoking behavior. All smokers were asked how re-
cently they last smoked a cigarette (to the nearest quarter hour) and
how many cigarettes they had smoked on the study day prior to
coming to the lab.
Cigarette ratings. At the study’s end, all participants com-
pleted a brief questionnaire querying them about the “harshness,”
“strength,” and “pleasantness” of the research cigarette they
smoked (Kassel & Unrod, 2000). Response options ranged from 1
(not at all) to 4 (very much so).
546 KASSEL ET AL.
Procedure
Upon their arrival at the laboratory, all participants completed
either informed consent or assent and baseline self-report ques-
tionnaires, after which the details of the procedure were reiterated
verbally. Participants who were under 18 years old also provided
signed parental consent forms. Participants who qualified as smok-
ers were then given the opportunity to smoke a research cigarette
provided by the experimenter and were blind to the nicotine
content of the cigarette. Smokers took, on average, 10 min to
smoke their cigarette. To maintain parallelism across sessions for
both smokers and nonsmokers, we asked all nonsmokers to simply
sit for 10 min during this same time period. Both smokers and
nonsmokers were given access to several emotionally neutral
magazines.
After being instructed to smoke, in an ad libitum manner, as
much or as little of the cigarette as they wanted, participants lit the
cigarette and then inserted it into a mouthpiece used to assess
smoking topography via the Clinical Research Support System
(Plowshare Technologies, Baltimore, MD; see Kassel et al., 2007,
for a detailed analysis of the smoking topography data).2 Just prior
to (Time 1) and immediately after smoking the cigarette (Time 2),
participants completed the PANAS. All participants provided
baseline expired air breath samples (with the smokers providing a
second sample immediately after smoking the research cigarette)
that were assessed for alveolar carbon monoxide (CO) levels with
a Vitalograph EC 50 CO monitor. At the study’s end, participants
were debriefed, compensated, and, if they were smokers, given
referrals to smoking cessation programs.
Results
Sample Characteristics
Participants who met criteria as smokers were randomized into
either the DN (n ⫽ 23) or the HY (n ⫽ 22) experimental group,
with 27 nonsmokers serving as a comparison group. Participant
characteristics can be found in Table 1. The sample was ethnically
diverse, consisting of 36% Caucasians, 27% Asian/Pacific Island-
ers, 16% Hispanics, 12% African Americans, and 9% others.
One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and chi-square tests
revealed that the three experimental groups were comparable in
terms of age, sex, proportion of community participants to student
participants, and baseline PA and NA (as assessed with the
PANAS). Correspondingly, among the smokers only, no differ-
ences emerged between participants in the two nicotine conditions
on years smoked, days smoked per week, cigarettes smoked per
day, level of nicotine dependence, or perceived harshness and
strength of the experimental cigarettes, although smokers did rate
the HY cigarettes as slightly more pleasant than the DN cigarettes
( p ⬍ .05; cf. Juliano & Brandon, 2002). Moreover, as previously
reported (Kassel et al., 2007), those who smoked the DN cigarette
took more puffs per cigarette relative to those in the HY nicotine
condition ( p ⬍ .05, ␩p2 ⫽ .11).3 Both nicotine groups evidenced
similar scores on the NAM and BR smoking expectancy subscales.
Taken together, then, our sample was made up of smokers who
smoked an average of 20 cigarettes a week and had been smoking
for just over 2 years. Their scores on the MFTQ were also
indicative of very low levels of nicotine dependence (M ⫽ 2.15,
SD ⫽ 0.33). Finally, analyses revealed no differences among the
community and college student participants in terms of age (␩p2 ⫽
.01), sex (␩p2 ⫽ .01), how many days a week they smoked (␩p2 ⫽
.03), number of cigarettes smoked per day (␩p2 ⫽ .06), or emo-
tional responsivity with respect to change in NA (␩p2 ⫽ .03) and
PA (␩p2 ⫽ .04). Thus, the study sample included young, relatively
light smokers and comparably matched—in terms of demograph-
ics and baseline affect ratings—nonsmokers.
CO Manipulation Check
To ascertain whether smokers and nonsmokers could be differen-
tiated on the basis of their expired air CO scores, we conducted a
one-way ANOVA on baseline CO levels across the three experimen-
tal groups. Results indicated a significant effect, F(2, 69) ⫽ 12.48,
p ⬍ .001 (␩p2 ⫽ .26). Post hoc testing revealed that whereas partic-
ipants in both nicotine conditions exhibited comparable baseline COs
(HY, M ⫽ 8.5, SD ⫽ 1.52; DN, M ⫽ 10.33, SD ⫽ 1.80), smokers
evidenced significantly higher COs relative to nonsmokers (M ⫽
1.70, SD ⫽ 1.16), t(69) ⫽ ⫺4.52, p ⬍ .001. We then assessed
whether participants in the two nicotine conditions experienced com-
parable boosts in CO as a result of smoking a cigarette. Results of a
2 (HY vs. DN) ⫻ 2 (time: pre- vs. postcigarette CO) repeated
measures ANOVA revealed a main effect for time, F(1, 44) ⫽
135.40, p ⬍ .001 (␩p2 ⫽ .76; indicating that all smokers had, indeed,
inhaled smoke from the cigarette), and a nearly significant trend for
the Time ⫻ Nicotine condition, F(1, 44) ⫽ 3.66, p ⫽ .06 (␩p2 ⫽ .08),
suggesting that those who smoked the DN cigarette manifested
slightly greater CO boosts (M ⫽ 9.50, SD ⫽ 4.72) than did those who
smoked the HY cigarette (M ⫽ 6.82, SD ⫽ 3.76). Because those
participants who smoked the DN cigarette took more puffs per ciga-
rette than those who smoked the HY cigarette (see Kassel et al.,
2007), the marginal group differences in CO observed in the present
study may be attributable, at least in part, to group differences in puffs
per cigarette. However, inclusion of puff number as a covariate in this
same analysis yielded little effect on outcome, F(1, 43) ⫽ 3.10, p ⬍
.09 (␩p2 ⫽ .07).
Correlational Analyses
We next proceeded to conduct correlational analyses among the
primary study variables (see Table 2). For the purposes of these
analyses only, we created a proportion-of-change score for both
PA and NA, respectively, by subtracting Time 1 affect scores from
2
As described in Kassel et al. (2007), we assessed several smoking
topography indices, including number of puffs per cigarette, puff volume,
puff duration, interpuff interval, and maximum flow rate (velocity) per
puff. Significant group differences (between the DN and HY cigarettes)
emerged for total puff number, total interpuff interval, and total flow rate.
However, the latter two indexes reflect the more important differences
observed in total puff number. Hence, only puff number is incorporated
into the present article. Also, 10 additional participants are included in the
analyses described herein.
3
We report partial eta-squared effect size estimates to document the
magnitude of theoretically and/or clinically meaningful effects—␩p2 ⫽
SSeffect/(SSeffect ⫹ SSerror); they yield estimates comparable to a squared
partial correlation from multiple regression models. Cohen (1992) has
defined squared partial correlations of .02, .15, and .35 as small, medium,
and large effects, respectively.
 ADOLESCENT SMOKING 547

Table 1
Smoking and Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

HY nicotine group DN nicotine group

Nonsmokers (n ⫽ 27) (n ⫽ 22) (n ⫽ 23)

Demographic M SD n M SD n M SD n F(2, 70) t(42)

Age (years) 17.81 0.57 17.50 0.96 17.63 0.97 0.81

Sex (no. female) 10 13 11
Community students 12 13 12
College students 15 9 11
Baseline PA (PANAS) 28.33 7.99 27.00 6.91 27.30 6.91 0.23
Baseline NA (PANAS) 13.81 3.28 14.36 3.67 14.75 5.17 0.72
Nicotine dependence 2.22 0.38 2.12 0.25 1.02
Craving 25.25 6.05 25.81 6.13 0.31
Days a week smoked 5.78 1.48 5.48 1.75 0.61
Cigarettes a day smoked 3.33 1.11 3.75 1.89 ⫺0.88
Years smoked 2.61 1.19 2.04 1.37 1.51
Last cigarette smoked (hours ago) 6.95 8.91 6.18 8.29 0.29
No. cigarettes smoked on study day 2.00 1.70 1.87 1.87 0.25
Cigarette harshness 2.40 1.03 2.77 0.98 1.28
Cigarette strength 2.57 1.12 2.41 0.73 ⫺0.55
Cigarette pleasantness 3.65 0.65 3.13 0.71 ⫺2.55*
SEQ Negative Affect Management 2.99 0.58 2.78 0.75 1.04
SEQ Boredom Relief 2.74 0.77 2.60 0.91 0.58
Puff no. 11.00 8.65 17.71 11.05 ⫺2.21*

Note. Except as noted, none of the between-groups comparisons were statistically significant. HY ⫽ high yield; DN ⫽ denicotinized; PA ⫽ positive
affect; PANAS ⫽ Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; NA ⫽ negative affect; SEQ ⫽ Smoking Expectancies Questionnaire.
*
p ⬍ .05.

Time 2 scores and dividing by the Time 1 score (see Blumenthal,
Elden, & Flaten, 2004). Several interesting findings emerged.
First, craving was significantly correlated with nicotine depen-
dence (MFTQ), NA management expectancies (NAM), boredom
relief expectancies (BR), CO boost, and change over time in NA.
Moreover, the MFTQ demonstrated significant correlations with
recency of smoking (the more dependent the participant was, the
more recently he or she had smoked), number of cigarettes smoked
on the study day, and NA management expectancies. Taken to-
gether, these findings are compelling and suggest that, even among
these young and light smokers, signs and symptoms of nicotine
dependence (albeit at low levels) were evident and correlated in
meaningful ways with other dependence-related constructs. For
instance, the positive association between the MFTQ and NAM
may not be particularly surprising, as there is ample reason to
believe that smoking to relieve NA is the most predominant
attribution made by smokers (Kassel et al., 2003) and can actually
serve as a marker of nicotine dependence in itself (Shiffman, 1993;
Wahl et al., 2005). What is of great interest, though, is the
emergence of these associations in such light smokers.
Interestingly, and consistent with the findings above, we ob-
served that recency of smoking was positively correlated with
baseline NA, such that the longer it had been since a participant
smoked, the greater was his or her baseline NA. Increases in CO

Table 2
Correlation Matrix of Variables

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Craving —
2. MFTQ .60*** —
3. Cigs smoked today .25 .49*** —
4. Recency of smoking (0.25 hr) ⫺.23 ⫺.40** ⫺.71*** —
5. Baseline PA .25 .15 .18 ⫺.17 —
6. Baseline NA .21 ⫺.02 ⫺.20 .34* .01 —
7. PA change .11 .10 .12 ⫺.14 .14 ⫺.04 —
8. NA change ⫺.38* ⫺.26 .10 ⫺.05 ⫺.06 ⫺.49*** .18 —
9. NAM .37* .32* .16 ⫺.05 .05 .02 .05 ⫺.15 —
10. BR .53*** .24 .24 ⫺.05 .10 ⫺.01 .10 .05 .28 —
11. Puff no. ⫺.02 ⫺.06 ⫺.04 .01 .11 .20 ⫺.21 ⫺.04 .07 ⫺.02 —
12. CO boost .40** .27 .33* ⫺.40** .06 ⫺.08 .00 .05 .04 .23 .10 —

Note. MFTQ ⫽ modified Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnare; cigs ⫽ cigarette; PA ⫽ positive affect; NA ⫽ negative affect; NAM ⫽ Negative Affect
Management Expectancies; BR ⫽ Boredom Relief Expectancies; CO ⫽ expired air carbon monoxide.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
548 KASSEL ET AL.
attributable to smoking in the lab also proved important, as such
boosts were related to (a) number of cigarettes smoked on the
study day (the more cigarettes the participants smoked—perhaps
indicative of dependence—the greater was the CO increase) and,
in a somewhat paradoxical fashion, (b) recency of smoking, such
that the more recently one had smoked—again, perhaps reflecting
degree of dependence—the greater was his or her CO boost.
Finally, it is important to note that baseline NA was related to
subsequent change in NA. As was observed with baseline craving,
higher levels of initial NA were associated with larger decreases in
NA over time, suggesting that the greater the baseline NA was, the
more motivated the person was to smoke, resulting in a larger
precigarette–postcigarette decline in NA.
All in all, these findings provide reassuring validity data regard-
ing the MFTQ as a measure of nicotine dependence in young
smokers. Scores on this measure were significantly correlated with
recency of smoking, expectation of negative reinforcement, and
craving scores and predicted which smokers would experience the
greatest relief of NA in response to smoking an HY cigarette.
Hence, these correlational analyses appear to organize important
data relevant to smoking motivation in these young, light smokers.
Analyses Assessing Change in PA and NA
To determine whether the three experimental groups varied in
their change in affect over time, we conducted separate 3 (group:
nonsmokers, HY smokers, and DN smokers) ⫻ 2 (time: PANAS 1
vs. PANAS 2) mixed model ANOVAs on PA and NA, respec-
tively.4 Results from the PA ANOVA revealed a significant main
effect for time, F(1, 69) ⫽ 33.58, p ⬍ .001 (␩p2 ⫽ .33), as well as
a significant Group ⫻ Time interaction, F(2, 69) ⫽ 8.95, p ⬍ .001
(␩p2 ⫽ .21). These effects are depicted in Figure 1. Averaged
across all experimental groups, PA decreased significantly from
Time 1 to Time 2. Post hoc tests of the observed interaction effect
revealed that the nonsmokers demonstrated no significant change
in PA across time, F(1, 26) ⫽ 0.01, p ⫽ .96 (␩p2 ⫽ .00). Smokers
who smoked the HY cigarette, however, experienced a significant
decrease in PA, F(1, 21) ⫽ 14.84, p ⫽ .001 (␩p2 ⫽ .41), as did
those in the DN nicotine condition, F(1, 22) ⫽ 31.09, p ⬍ .001
Figure 1. Change in positive affect (PA) over time as a function of
experimental condition. Error bars are standard errors of the mean.
PANAS ⫽ Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; HY ⫽ high-nicotine-
yield cigarette; DN ⫽ denicotinized cigarette; NS ⫽ nonsmokers.
(␩p2 ⫽ .59). Thus, regardless of the nicotine content of the ciga-
rette, all smokers experienced significant reductions in PA.
Identical analyses were run on change in NA and resulted in a
significant main effect for time, F(1, 69) ⫽ 8.68, p ⫽ .004 (␩p2 ⫽
.21), as well as a marginally significant Group ⫻ Time interaction,
F(2, 69) ⫽ 2.92, p ⫽ .06 (␩p2 ⫽ .08; see Figure 2). Thus, averaged
across all three experimental groups, NA significantly fell from
Time 1 to Time 2. However, post hoc tests of the observed
interaction effect revealed that among nonsmokers, there was no
change in NA, F(1, 26) ⫽ 0.07, p ⫽ .80 (␩p2 ⫽ .00). Whereas
participants in the HY nicotine condition experienced a significant
decrease in NA, F(1, 21) ⫽ 8.60, p ⫽ .008 (␩p2 ⫽ .29), those in
the DN condition evidenced a nearly significant drop in NA, F(1,
22) ⫽ 3.90, p ⫽ .06 (␩p2 ⫽ .08).
Given the observed strong associations between baseline crav-
ing and smoking expectancies, CO boost, nicotine dependence,
and change in NA, we reran these same analyses on change in NA
among smokers only, including craving as an independent vari-
able.5 Results revealed that, whereas no significant Group ⫻ Time
interaction was evident, F(1, 41) ⫽ 0.00, p ⫽ .99 (␩p2 ⫽ .00), a
significant Craving ⫻ Time interaction did emerge, F(1, 41) ⫽
8.57, p ⫽ .006 (␩p2 ⫽ .17), as well as a significant three-way
(Craving ⫻ Time ⫻ Group) interaction, F(2, 41) ⫽ 4.29, p ⫽ .02
(␩p2 ⫽ .17). Follow-up tests showed that among those who
smoked the HY cigarette, a Craving ⫻ Time interaction was
evident, F(1, 19) ⫽ 7.49, p ⬍ .02 (␩p2 ⫽ .28), indicating that
greater NA reduction was observed among those who reported
high craving. Among the DN smokers, no such interaction effect
was observed, F(1, 21) ⫽ 1.81, p ⬎ .10 (␩p2 ⫽ .11).
In summary, for nonsmokers, their affect (both PA and NA)
tended to be quite stable over the 10-min time period. Smokers,
however, experienced significant reductions in PA, regardless of
the nicotine content of their cigarette. Smokers in the HY condition
also experienced significant decreases in NA, whereas those who
smoked the DN cigarette evidenced a nearly significant drop in
NA. However, these observed effects with respect to change in NA
were clearly influenced by levels of baseline craving, particularly
among those who smoked the HY cigarette.
The Relation of Nicotine Dependence and Smoking
Expectancies With Change in PA and NA
To further explore the observed findings with respect to
nicotine’s effects on both PA and NA, we proceeded to conduct
several moderation analyses. We dichotomized (via median
splits) the nicotine dependence and smoking expectancy scores
to determine whether the relationship between change in affect
and nicotine yield differed as a function of these potential
moderating variables. Thus, we ran a series of mixed model
ANOVAs in which PA and NA, respectively, at Times 1 and 2
served as the within-subject, repeated measures variables and
4
In addition to the analyses reported subsequently, possible sex differ-
ences were examined through main effects and interactions with the
independent variables. None was found.
5
To include a continuous independent variable such as craving in the
general linear model repeated measures ANOVA procedure in SPSS 14.0,
we entered craving as a covariate.
 ADOLESCENT SMOKING
Figure 2. Change in negative affect (NA) over time as a function of
experimental condition. Error bars are standard errors of the mean.
PANAS ⫽ Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; HY ⫽ high-nicotine-
yield cigarette; DN ⫽ denicotinized cigarette; NS ⫽ nonsmokers.
the MFTQ, NAM, and BR served as the respective predictor
variables (with nicotine condition—i.e., group— entered into all
models). Results for the three PA analyses revealed no signif-
icant main or interaction effects (all ␩p2s ⬍ .07).
With respect to change in NA, BR was not a significant predic-
tor of change, nor did it interact with nicotine condition to predict
change (all ␩p2s ⬍ .02). However, analyses of both the MFTQ and
the NAM yielded significant findings. Regarding the MFTQ, a
significant MFTQ ⫻ Group ⫻ Time interaction emerged, F(1,
41) ⫽ 4.12, p ⬍ .05 (␩p2 ⫽ .09). As can be seen in Figure 3, those
who scored high on the MFTQ and who smoked the HY cigarette
derived the largest reduction in NA, F(1, 11) ⫽ 13.55, p ⫽ .04
(␩p2 ⫽ .55). By contrast, those with high MFTQ scores who
smoked the DN cigarette experienced no significant change in NA,
F(1, 10) ⫽ 1.12, p ⬎ .30 (␩p2 ⫽ .10). Thus, among those in the
high MFTQ group, significant differences were detected between
the HY and DN cigarette conditions, F(1, 21) ⫽ 4.79, p ⫽ .04
(␩p2 ⫽ .19). Among those in the low MFTQ group, no differences
in NA across time were observed between the two cigarette con-
ditions (␩p2 ⫽ .05).
Figure 3. Change in negative affect (NA) examined as a function of
nicotine yield (HY ⫽ high-nicotine-yield cigarette; DN ⫽ denicotinized
cigarette) and dichotomized modified Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire
(MFTQ) scores. Error bars are standard errors of the mean. PANAS ⫽
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule.
549
Regarding the influence of NAM on change in NA, a significant
NAM ⫻ Group (nicotine condition) ⫻ Time interaction was
similarly evident, F(1, 41) ⫽ 10.34, p ⫽ .003 (␩p2 ⫽ .20).
Inspection of Figure 4 reveals that, comparable to what was
observed with the MFTQ analyses, those who scored high on the
NAM (i.e., held strong beliefs that smoking relieves NA) and who
smoked the HY cigarette derived the largest reduction in NA, F(1,
11) ⫽ 17.29, p ⫽ .002 (␩p2 ⫽ .61). Those with high NAM beliefs
who smoked the DN cigarette derived no significant reduction in
NA, F(1, 11) ⫽ 0.16, p ⬎ .70 (␩p2 ⫽ .01). Hence, among those in
the high NAM group, significant differences were observed be-
tween the HY and DN cigarette conditions, F(1, 22) ⫽ 9.95, p ⫽
.005 (␩p2 ⫽ .31). Examination of those participants in the low
NAM group revealed a marginally significant interaction effect,
F(1, 19) ⫽ 3.18, p ⬍ .10 (␩p2 ⫽ .14), such that low NAM smokers
derived a slightly greater reduction in NA when smoking a DN
cigarette, F(1, 10) ⫽ 4.37, p ⬍ .07 (␩p2 ⫽ .30), relative to the HY
cigarette, F(1, 9) ⫽ 0.02, p ⬎ .80 (␩p2 ⫽ .00).
Discussion
Despite the fact that adolescent smoking continues to pose a
serious public health concern, relatively little is known about the
motivational processes governing smoking initiation and subse-
quent development of nicotine dependence. Moreover, although a
burgeoning literature suggests that many adolescents attribute their
smoking to its alleged ability to facilitate affect regulation (e.g.,
Johnson et al., 2003), we are unaware of any previous controlled
laboratory studies that have assessed the acute effects of smoking
(or nicotine) on emotional response in this vulnerable population.
As such, the current study represents the first to examine the
effects of nicotine on both PA and NA in adolescents.
Our findings provide persuasive evidence that smoking a ciga-
rette reduces NA in adolescents. It is important to note, however,
that the extent of that observed reduction appears to be dependent
on several key factors, including the nicotine content of the ciga-
rette, level of dependence, level of baseline craving, and smoking
expectancies. In light of the fact that demonstration of NA reduc-
tion attributable to smoking and/or nicotine has certainly proven
difficult in older, more dependent smokers (see, e.g., Conklin &
Figure 4. Change in negative affect (NA) examined as a function of
nicotine yield (HY ⫽ high-nicotine-yield cigarette; DN ⫽ denicotinized
cigarette) and dichotomized NA management (NAM) scores. Error bars are
standard errors of the mean. PANAS ⫽ Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule.
550 KASSEL ET AL.
Perkins, 2005; Kassel et al., 2003)—findings that ultimately cast
doubt on negative reinforcement models of drug motivation—the
present results, obtained in young, relatively light smokers, are
most compelling. Moreover, our findings strongly suggest that the
observed NA reduction may be due, in great part, to alleviation of
withdrawal symptomatology. Indeed, implication of withdrawal is
supported by the association of NA reduction with nicotine depen-
dence and baseline craving. Hence, such observations are impor-
tant in that they provide evidence that even neophyte, light smok-
ers may experience significant levels of nicotine dependence and
may be more motivated to smoke for withdrawal relief than might
once have been supposed (see Kassel, 2000). Finally, it is impor-
tant to note that the extant literature implicating nicotine depen-
dence in young smokers rests almost entirely on questionnaire
studies, not real-time reactions to smoking under relatively con-
trolled conditions.
On the Specificity of Affect
The findings are, in many respects, both interesting and per-
plexing. First, we observed that all smokers, regardless of whether
they smoked an HY or a DN nicotine cigarette, experienced
reductions in both PA and NA. It is important to note, however,
that nonsmokers experienced virtually no change in PA and NA
across the same 10-min time period. Thus, the notion that affect
(be it positive or negative) simply drifts downward over time can
probably be ruled out. The findings nonetheless raise the question
of how a drug could reduce both PA and NA simultaneously. As
noted earlier, some comfort can be derived from influential con-
ceptualizations of affect asserting that PA and NA are independent
constructs, not simply opposite ends of a bipolar continuum
(Watson & Tellegen, 1985; see also Perkins, Jetton, & Keenan,
2003, for an interesting discussion of these issues within the realm
of nicotine research). Indeed, the observed correlation between
baseline PA and NA in our study was .01. When viewed in the
context of such theoretical and applied levels of analyses, the
pattern of findings observed in the present study is perhaps less
disconcerting than at first glance.
In sum, regardless of the nicotine content, smoking a cigarette
appeared to reduce both NA and PA in adolescent smokers. The
fact that smoking assuaged NA is, indeed, consistent with the
majority of self-report studies assessing smoking motives among
adolescent smokers (e.g., Dozois et al., 1995; Johnson et al., 2005).
As noted earlier, however, there are scant data with respect to
determining the influence of smoking and nicotine on PA in adult
smokers, let alone adolescent smokers. It is conceivable that, in
concert with reports indicating that early experiences with smok-
ing are often perceived as aversive (Eissenberg & Balster, 2000),
certain aspects of smoking may genuinely diminish feelings of PA.
It is also worth noting, though, that PA, as measured by the
PANAS, contains only high-activation (arousing), positively va-
lenced items (Watson et al., 1988). Therefore, it is plausible that
the reduction in PA observed in the present study among those
who smoked either HY or DN cigarettes may, in fact, reflect an
increase in low-arousal aspects of PA (e.g., relaxation or calm).
Such an interpretation would certainly be consistent, again, with a
wealth of self-report data suggesting that smokers find smoking
relaxing (Dozois et al., 1995; McNeil et al., 1987). Yet another
possibility is that the smokers simply did not like the research
cigarettes very much and that this experience influenced their
experience of PA (but less so NA). At odds with such an idea,
however, are findings from correlational analyses revealing no
association between the cigarette ratings (harshness, strength, and
pleasantness) and PA (all rs ⬍ .15).
Finally, although the PA–NA model views PA and NA as
separate constructs, it still subsumes a variety of aversive affective
states (e.g., anger, contempt, and nervousness) under the rubric of
NA and a host of positive affective states (e.g., excited, enthusi-
astic, and inspired) under the rubric of PA (Watson et al., 1988).
The basic emotions viewpoint posits a discrete number of evolu-
tionarily derived and biologically based emotional states (e.g.,
happiness, sadness, anger, disgust, and fear), in lieu of two over-
arching affective dimensions (e.g., Ekman, 1984; Johnson-Laird &
Oatley, 1992). Indeed, there is growing evidence in support of
basic-emotion-specific brain activity (Murphy, Nimmo-Smith, &
Lawrence, 2003; Phan, Wager, Taylor, & Liberzon, 2004). This
raises the intriguing possibility that diverse drugs of abuse, includ-
ing nicotine, may differentially affect these distinct emotion sub-
strates. Therefore, one implication for future drug research is that
it examine the effects of drugs, such as nicotine, on basic emotions
rather than limiting its scope to the broader constructs of NA and
PA (see also Barrett, 2006; Russell, 2003).
The Moderating Role of Nicotine Dependence and
Smoking Expectancies
Our findings revealed that regardless of the nicotine content of
the cigarette smoked, all participants experienced reductions in
both PA and NA. It is true that with respect to NA, those who
smoked the DN cigarette experienced only a nearly significant
decline (␩p2 ⫽ .08) in NA. Nonetheless, we do not want to hold
too rigid an interpretation of this finding. One implication of these
results is that the act of smoking a cigarette alone may account for
its effects on emotional response. This may be particularly true for
adolescent smokers, many of whom have perhaps not yet pro-
gressed to nicotine dependence (although see DiFranza et al.,
2000). Correspondingly, the DN cigarette might have acted as an
effective placebo (cf. Robinson, Houtsmuller, Moolchan, & Pick-
worth, 2000), such that the very belief that one was smoking a
normal cigarette yielded changes in affect comparable to those
derived from the HY cigarette. (Remember that participants’ rat-
ings of cigarette strength and harshness did not differ across
nicotine conditions).
In addition, as noted earlier, the expectancies one holds for drug
effects can, in themselves, influence the actual derived effects
(e.g., Hull & Bond, 1986; Juliano & Brandon, 2002). Therefore,
we were interested in examining whether expectancies related to
nicotine’s effects on affect regulation—in this instance, boredom
relief and NA management—might yield independent or interac-
tive effects on PA and/or NA. We were similarly interested in
assessing whether nicotine dependence also acted as a moderator.
Our thinking was that as individuals approach or have reached a
state of nicotine dependence, they may be motivated to smoke to
stave off or escape aversive symptoms of nicotine withdrawal
(e.g., negative affect; see Baker et al., 2004).
Our results showed that none of the assessed independent vari-
ables influenced PA either directly or in interaction with nicotine
yield. However, several interesting findings emerged with respect
 ADOLESCENT SMOKING
to change in NA. Those who both held strong beliefs that smoking
facilitates NA management and smoked the HY cigarette experi-
enced the greatest reductions in NA. By contrast, if smokers held
relatively low expectations that smoking assuages NA and smoked
the HY cigarette, they experienced no meaningful change in NA.
A similar patterning of findings was found for the MFTQ measure.
Those who were more nicotine dependent and who smoked the HY
cigarette experienced the largest reductions in NA. Last, baseline
craving similarly emerged as a predictor of subsequent reductions
in NA among those who smoked the HY cigarette.
Again, given that, as far as we are aware, this is the first study
to examine the acute effects of nicotine on self-reported affect in
adolescent smokers, these findings certainly need to be replicated.
Nonetheless, the observation that nicotine dependence, craving,
and expectancies of NA management all exerted a significant
influence on reducing NA only among those who smoked the HY
nicotine cigarette is most interesting. One interpretation is that, on
the basis of prior experience and learning—limited though it might
have been in this sample of young, light smokers—these adoles-
cents have come to pair the experience of smoking nicotine ciga-
rettes with NA reduction (which, in turn, might have helped to
shape their NA management expectancies). As such, they bene-
fited from this reduction in NA only when they smoked the
cigarette containing a pharmacologically active dose of nicotine
and held high expectancies for NA reduction.
Finally, the findings from this study may, perhaps, be most
parsimoniously interpreted within a withdrawal-relief framework
(Baker et al., 2004; Kassel et al., 2006). Hence, it is conceivable
that the smokers were in a state of mild withdrawal when allowed
to smoke—an idea not inconsistent with their self-reports of crav-
ing (mean score of 25.5, with a range of 13–37)—and that what
was observed (at least with respect to NA) was indicative of
withdrawal relief resulting from smoking a cigarette. Indeed, de-
pendence— even low levels, as evidenced in this sample of very
light smokers—may be related to the tendency to experience more
severe withdrawal, as manifested by craving (Baker et al., 2004).
As such, the presence of craving might be associated with greater
NA reduction among such smokers. Consistent with such an in-
terpretation are the findings that craving was significantly corre-
lated with subsequent change in NA (r ⫽ ⫺.38) and that when it
was included as an independent variable, craving predicted down-
ward shifts in NA. Moreover, baseline NA, although only mod-
estly associated with craving, was also significantly correlated
with subsequent reduction in NA (r ⫽ ⫺.49).
In addition, it is important to note that the causal pathways
underlying any predictors or moderators of the observed reduction
in NA warrant further empirical scrutiny. For example, we ob-
served that NA regulation expectancies moderated the reduction in
NA but did so only in response to smoking an HY, versus a DN,
cigarette. The question arises as to why such expectancies did not
also exert their effects through a placebo (DN) cigarette. Perhaps
the answer lies in the manifest correlations among NA manage-
ment expectancies, craving, and nicotine dependence. That is, it is
possible that some of the association of these expectancies with
NA reduction was really due to their shared variance with depen-
dence and consequent withdrawal influences. Further research
with larger numbers of young smokers is clearly needed to eluci-
date such motivational pathways.
551
Methodological Considerations
Several limitations of the study need to be acknowledged. First,
we used a between-subjects design, such that each participant was
exposed to only one of the two nicotine conditions. A more
statistically powerful approach would use a repeated measures,
within-subject design, which ultimately allows participants to act
as their own control. Second, participants were asked to smoke a
research cigarette provided to them by the experimenter in lieu of
smoking their own typical brand.6 In concert with the artificiality
of the laboratory environment as well as smoking the cigarette
through a mouthpiece, this approach might have weakened the
ecological (external) validity of our findings. Third, those in the
HY condition rated their cigarettes as more pleasant relative to
those who smoked the DN cigarettes. Whereas this finding is
certainly not without precedent (Juliano & Brandon, 2002), it does
reflect an inherent limitation in the use of placebo cigarettes.
It is also important to note that, because the adolescents in this
study were such light smokers, we did not control for time since
last cigarette. Thus, whereas one would typically attempt to stan-
dardize potential withdrawal-related motivation to smoke among
heavier, adult smokers, we did not feel it necessary to do so with
this particular sample. Moreover, we feared that were we to ask
subjects to smoke on their arrival at the laboratory and then smoke
again, for instance, 50 min later (cf. Kassel & Shiffman, 1997), we
would risk inducing aversive reactions to smoking. However, we
did assess length of deprivation and found it to correlate in mean-
ingful ways with nicotine dependence (r ⫽ ⫺.40) and baseline NA
(r ⫽ .34).
Finally, inclusion of a no-smoke condition for the smokers
would ultimately make comparisons between the nonsmokers and
smokers more meaningful. As it is, we can only conclude that
whereas the nonsmokers experienced no change in either PA or
NA, the smokers did, regardless of the nicotine content of the
cigarette. Thus, although our results may be interpreted as sugges-
tive of smoking effects, they do not constitute conclusive evidence.
Of course, it is always possible that some other, unmeasured
variable may differentiate smokers from nonsmokers and account,
at least in part, for the observed differences in affective outcome.
Yet some reassurance can be taken from the findings that no
differences emerged between the smokers and nonsmokers on
baseline measures of affect, despite the fact that, at least among
adults, smokers typically evidence more affective distress in gen-
eral relative to nonsmokers (Lasser et al., 2000).
Summary
In the first study to assess the acute effects of nicotine on affect
in adolescent smokers, it was found that smoking a cigarette—
regardless of the nicotine content—led to reductions in both PA
and NA. The most marked reductions in NA, however, were
observed among those who smoked the HY cigarette. Nonsmok-
ers, who served as a comparison control group, evidenced no
change in affect. It is important to note that NA management
expectancies as well as nicotine dependence emerged as modera-
6
In fact, anecdotal reports from many of the participants indicated they
did not have a usual cigarette brand, as they often simply borrowed their
cigarettes from others.
552 KASSEL ET AL.
tors of these effects. Moreover, baseline craving levels were also
associated with subsequent declines in NA directly attributable to
nicotine. Although we acknowledge that conducting laboratory
research with adolescent smokers presents daunting pragmatic,
ethical, and even legal challenges, such research is nonetheless
critical to shedding light on the underlying reinforcing mecha-
nisms governing adolescent cigarette smoking. This study repre-
sents a first step in what we hope will prove to be a long line of
research aimed at better understanding the affective determinants
of smoking in this vulnerable population. In sum, a far more
systematic and theory-based approach to delineation of smoking–
affect relationships is needed (see Kassel et al., 2006). Such an
approach not only will help clarify these complex associations but
will also inform the prevention and intervention efforts that are so
sorely required to stem the tide of adolescent smoking.
References
Baker, T. B., Piper, M. E., McCarthy, D. E., Majeskie, M. R., & Fiore,
M. C. (2004). Addiction motivation reformulated: An affective process-
ing model of negative reinforcement. Psychological Review, 111, 33–51.
Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the
experience of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10,
20 – 46.
Blumenthal, T. D., Elden, A., & Flaten, M. A. (2004). A comparison of
several methods used to quantify prepulse inhibition of eyeblink re-
sponding. Psychophysiology, 41, 326 –332.
Brandon, T. H., Juliano, L. M., & Copeland, A. L. (1999). Expectancies for
tobacco smoking. In I. Kirsch (Ed.), How expectancies shape experience
(pp. 263–299). New York: American Psychological Association.
Brown, R. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., Seeley, J. R., & Wagner, E. F. (1996).
Cigarette smoking, major depression, and other psychiatric disorders
among adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1602–1610.
Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Rose, J., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). What is
addiction? Age-related differences in the meaning of addiction. Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 87, 30 –38.
Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Sherman, S. J., Corty, E., & Olshavsky, R.
(1984). Predicting the onset of cigarette smoking in adolescents: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 224 –243.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Colby, S. M., Tiffany, S. T., Shiffman, S., & Niaura, R. S. (2000). Are
adolescent smokers dependent on nicotine? A review of the evidence.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 59, S83–S95.
Conklin, C. A., & Perkins, K. A. (2005). Subjective and reinforcing effects
of smoking during negative mood induction. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 114, 153–164.
Corrigall, W. A., Zack, M., Eissenberg, T., Belsito, L., & Scher, R. (2001).
Acute subjective and physiological responses to smoking in adolescents.
Addiction, 96, 1409 –1417.
DiFranza, J. R., Rigotti, N., McNeill, A. D., Ockene, J. K., Savageau, J. A.,
& St. Cyr, D. (2000). Initial symptoms of nicotine dependence in
adolescents. Tobacco Control, 9, 313–319.
Dozois, D. N., Farrow, J. A., & Miser, A. (1995). Smoking patterns and
cessation motivations during adolescence. International Journal of the
Addictions, 30, 1485–1498.
Eissenberg, T., & Balster, R. L. (2000). Initial tobacco use episodes in
children and adolescents: Current knowledge, future directions. Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 59(Suppl. 1), S41–S60.
Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. Scherer &
P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 319 –343). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Escobedo, L. G., Reddy, M., & Giovino, G. A. (1998). The relationship
between depressive symptoms and cigarette smoking in U.S. adoles-
cents. Addiction, 93, 433– 440.
Fagerstrom, K. O. (1978). Measuring degree of physical dependence to
tobacco smoking with reference to individualization of treatment. Ad-
dictive Behaviors, 3, 235–241.
Ferguson, K. J., Burke, J. A., Becker, S. L., Reimers, T. M., Daughety,
V. S., & Pomrehn, P. R. (1992). The recruitment of new smokers by
adolescents. Health Communication, 4, 171–181.
Hull, J. G., & Bond, C. F. (1986). Social and behavioral consequences of
alcohol consumption and expectancy: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 99, 347–360.
Ikard, F. F., Green, P. E., & Horn, D. (1969). A scale to differentiate
between types of smoking as related to the management of affect.
International Journal of the Addictions, 4, 649 – 659.
Jamner, L. D., Whalen, C. K., Loughlin, S. E., Mermelstein, R. J., Audrain-
McGovern, J., Krishnan-Sarin, S., et al. (2003). Tobacco use across the
formative years: A road map to developmental vulnerabilities. Nicotine
& Tobacco Research, 5, S71–S87.
Johnson, J. L., Bottorff, J. L., Moffat, B., Ratner, P. A., Shoveller, J. A., &
Lovato, C. Y. (2003). Tobacco dependence: Adolescents’ perspectives
on the need to smoke. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1481–1492.
Johnson, J. L., Ratner, P. A., Tucker, R. S., Bottorff, J. L., Zumbo, B.,
Prkachin, K. M., et al. (2005). Development of a multidimensional
measure of tobacco dependence in adolescence. Addictive Behaviors, 30,
501–515.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Oatley, K. (1992). Basic emotions, rationality, and
folk theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 201–223.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E.
(2005a). Decline in teen smoking appears to be nearing its end. Re-
trieved December 19, 2005, from http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/
pressreleases/05cigpr.pdf
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E.
(2005b). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use,
1975–2004: Vol. 1. Secondary school students (NIH Publication No.
05–5727). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Juliano, L. M., & Brandon, T. H. (2002). Effects of nicotine dose, instruc-
tional set, and outcome expectancies on the subjective effects of smok-
ing in the presence of a stressor. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111,
88 –97.
Kassel, J. D. (2000). Are adolescent smokers addicted to nicotine? The
suitability of the nicotine dependence construct as applied to adoles-
cents. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 9, 27– 49.
Kassel, J. D., Greenstein, J. E., Evatt, D. P., Wardle, M. C., Yates, M. C.,
Veilleux, J. C., et al. (2007). Smoking topography in response to deni-
cotinized and high-yield nicotine cigarettes in adolescent smokers. Jour-
nal of Adolescent Health, 40, 54 – 60.
Kassel, J. D., & Hankin, B. L. (2006). Smoking and depression. In A.
Steptoe (Ed.), Depression and physical illness (pp. 321–347). Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kassel, J. D., & Shiffman, S. (1992). What can hunger teach us about drug
craving? A comparative analysis of the two constructs. Advances in
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 14, 141–167.
Kassel, J. D., & Shiffman, S. (1997). Attentional mediation of cigarette
smoking’s effect on anxiety. Health Psychology, 16, 359 –368.
Kassel, J. D., Stroud, L. R., & Paronis, C. A. (2003). Smoking, stress, and
negative affect: Correlation, causation, and context across stages of
smoking. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 270 –304.
Kassel, J. D., & Unrod, M. (2000). Smoking, anxiety, and attention:
Support for the role of nicotine in attentionally mediated anxiolysis.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 161–166.
Kassel, J. D., Veilleux, J. C., Wardle, M. C., Yates, M. C., Greenstein,
J. E., Evatt, D. P., et al. (2006). Negative affect and addiction. In M.
al’Absi (Ed.), Stress and addiction: Biological and psychological mech-
anisms (pp. 171–190). New York: Elsevier.
 ADOLESCENT SMOKING
Kassel, J. D., Weinstein, S., Skitch, S. A., Veilleux, J., & Mermelstein, R.
(2005). The development of substance abuse in adolescence. In B. L.
Hankin & J. R. Abela (Eds.), Development of psychopathology: A
vulnerability-stress perspective (pp. 355–384). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Khantzian, E. J. (1997). The self-medication hypothesis of substance use
disorders: A reconsideration and recent applications. Harvard Review of
Psychiatry, 4, 231–244.
Koval, J. J., Pederson, L. L., Mills, C. A., McGrady, G. A., & Carvajal,
S. C. (2000). Models of the relationship of stress, depression, and other
psychosocial factors to smoking behavior: A comparison of a cohort of
students in Grades 6 and 8. Preventive Medicine, 30, 463– 477.
Lasser, K., Boyd, J. W., Woolhandler, S., Himmelstein, D. U., McCormick,
D., & Bor, D. H. (2000). Smoking and mental illness: A population-
based prevalence study. Journal of the American Medical Association,
284, 2606 –2610.
McKennell, A. C. (1970). Smoking motivation factors. British Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 8 –22.
McNeill, A. D., Jarvis, M. J., & West, R. J. (1987). Subjective effects of
cigarette smoking in adolescents. Psychopharmacology, 92, 115–117.
Miller, M., Hemenway, D., & Rimm, E. (2000). Cigarettes and suicide: A
prospective study of 50,000 men. American Journal of Public Health,
90, 768 –773.
Moolchan, E. T., & Mermelstein, R. (2002). Research on tobacco use
among teenagers: Ethical challenges. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30,
409 – 417.
Murphy, F. C., Nimmo-Smith, I., & Lawrence, A. D. (2003). Functional
neuroanatomy of emotions: A meta-analysis. Cognitive, Affective and
Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 207–233.
Nichter, M., Nichter, M., Vuckovic, N., Quintero, G., & Ritenbaugh, C.
(1997). Smoking experimentation and initiation among adolescent girls:
Qualitative and quantitative findings. Tobacco Control, 6, 285–295.
Oetting, E. R., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (1998). Primary socialization theory:
The etiology of drug use and deviance. I. Substance Use and Misuse, 33,
995–1026.
Patton, G. C., Hibbert, M., Rosier, M. J., Carlin, J. B., Caust, J., & Bowes,
G. (1996). Is smoking associated with depression and anxiety in teen-
agers? American Journal of Public Health, 86, 225–230.
Perkins, K. A., Jetton, C., & Keenan, J. (2003). Common factors across
acute subjective effects of nicotine. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5,
869 – 875.
Phan, K., Wager, T. D., Taylor, S. F., & Liberzon, I. (2004). Functional
neuroanatomy of emotion: A meta-analysis of emotion activation studies
in PET and fMRI. NeuroImage, 16, 331–348.
Pickworth, W. B., Fant, R. V., Nelson, R. A., Rohrer, M. S., & Henning-
field, J. E. (1999). Pharmacodynamic effects of new denicotinized
cigarettes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 1, 357–364.
Prokhorov, A. V., De Moor, C., Pallonen, U. E., Hudmon, K. S., Koehly,
L., & Hu, S. (2000). Validation of the modified Fagerstrom Tolerance
Questionnaire with salivary cotinine among adolescents. Addictive Be-
haviors, 25, 429 – 433.
Robinson, M. L., Houtsmuller, E. J., Moolchan, E. T., & Pickworth, W. B.
(2000). Placebo cigarettes in smoking research. Experimental and Clin-
ical Psychopharmacology, 8, 326 –332.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of
emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 145–172.
Shadel, W. G., Shiffman, R., Niaura, M., Nichter, M., & Abrams, D. B.
553
(2000). Current models of nicotine dependence: What is known and
what is needed to advance understanding of tobacco etiology among
youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 59, S9 –S22.
Shiffman, S. (1993). Assessing smoking patterns and motives. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 732–742.
Shiffman, S. M., & Jarvik, M. E. (1976). Smoking withdrawal symptoms
in two weeks of abstinence. Psychopharmacology, 50, 35–39.
Siegel, S. (1983). Classical conditioning, drug tolerance, and drug depen-
dence. In R. G. Smart, F. B. Glaser, Y. Israel, H. Kalant, & R. E. Popham
(Eds.), Research advances in alcohol and drug problems (Vol. 7, pp.
207–246). New York: Plenum.
Sonntag, H., Wittchen, H. U., Hofler, M., Kessler, R. C., & Stein, M. B.
(2000). Are social fears and DSM–IV social anxiety disorder associated
with smoking and nicotine dependence in adolescents and young adults?
European Psychiatry, 15, 67–74.
Spielberger, C. D. (1986). Psychological determinants of smoking behav-
ior. In R. D. Tollison (Ed.), Smoking and society: Toward a more
balanced assessment (pp. 89 –134). Lexington, MA: Heath.
Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1996). Initiation and
maintenance of tobacco smoking: Changing personality correlates in
adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 26, 160 –187.
Stevens, S. L., Colwell, B., Smith, D. W., Robinson, J., & McMillan, C.
(2005). An exploration of self-reported negative affect by adolescents as
a reason for smoking: Implications for tobacco prevention and interven-
tion programs. Preventive Medicine, 41, 589 –596.
Stewart, J., de Wit, H., & Eikelboom, R. (1984). Role of unconditioned and
conditioned drug effects in the self-administration of opiates and stim-
ulants. Psychological Review, 91, 251–268.
Wahl, S. K., Turner, L. R., Mermelstein, R. J., & Flay, B. R. (2005).
Adolescents’ smoking expectancies: Psychometric properties and pre-
diction of behavior change. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 7, 613– 623.
Wang, M. Q., Fitzhugh, E. C., Eddy, J. M., Fu, Q., & Turner, L. (1997).
Social influences on adolescents’ smoking progress: A longitudinal
analysis. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21, 111–117.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of
mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219 –235.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general
activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary consider-
ations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 820 – 838.
Wikler, A. (1973). Dynamics of drug dependence: Implications of a con-
ditioning theory for research and treatment. Archives of General Psy-
chiatry, 28, 611– 616.
Wills, T. A., & Shiffman, S. (1985). Coping and substance use: A con-
ceptual framework. In S. Shiffman & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Coping and
substance use (pp. 3–24). New York: Academic Press.
Wise, R. A. (1998). Drug-activation of brain reward pathways. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence, 51, 13–22.
Received May 17, 2006
Revision received March 5, 2007
Accepted March 5, 2007 䡲