, 2009) whose smoking is driven primarily by social factors, especially the presence of friends who are smoking. Yet it remains to be seen whether this truly accounts for ITS’ smoking; the fact that ITS were more likely to endorse stressful situations as occasions for smoking (Shiffman et al., 2012c) suggests that their smoking motives and patterns may be more than simply social. ITS also gave the greatest emphasis to Cue Exposure motives – the tendency

to smoke in particular situations but not others, depending on Dinaciclib mouse the cues present. Although DS are also thought to be influenced by cues (Carter and Tiffany, 1999, Ferguson and Shiffman, 2009, Niaura et al., 1988, Shiffman et al., 2012a and Shiffman et al., 2002), the fact that such motives are particularly prominent in ITS’ profiles is consistent with a stimulus-control account of ITS’ smoking (Shiffman et al., 2012b and Shiffman and Paty, 2006), which posits that ITS’ smoking comes under control of situational stimuli, such that smoking is prompted by particular cues, often external ones, instead

BMS-777607 of the endogenous rhythms of nicotine intake and clearance that are thought to drive the smoking of typical dependent smokers. It was striking that ITS scored higher in the relative importance of Positive Reinforcement. Most theories of smoking suggest that positive reinforcement fades in importance as dependence found progresses and negative reinforcement comes to dominate smoking. These data are consistent with that, though the small size of the difference suggests that positive reinforcement may continue to be important even in heavy and dependent smokers. ITS’ equal or greater emphasis (compared to DS) on negative reinforcement motives is consistent with their reports that they often smoke when emotionally distressed (Shiffman et al., 2012c), and with the finding of Piasecki et al. (2007) that non-daily smoking college students are more likely to

say they smoke in order to cope with distress. However, it is at odds with most accounts of negative reinforcement by smoking, which typically attribute negative-affect smoking to relief of withdrawal symptoms caused by dependence (Eissenberg, 2004 and Parrott, 1999). Since ITS demonstrate little to no dependence on traditional scales (Shiffman et al., 2012b and Shiffman et al., 2012c) and demonstrate no withdrawal when they abstain, withdrawal-management cannot account for their reports of Negative Reinforcement. It has been proposed (Kassel et al., 2003) that nicotine may have direct distress-relief effects that do not depend on withdrawal-relief, but actually reduce distress from exogenous sources. Thus, ITS’ higher scores may reflect use of smoking for instrumental purposes, which is more associated with non-dependent smoking.