, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 269–273 | Cite as

Drug preference and mood in humans: Diazepam

  • C. E. Johanson
  • E. H. Uhlenhuth
Original Investigations


A group of ten normal human volunteers participated in choice experiments comparing d-amphetamine or diazepam with placebo and with each other. Although amphetamine was preferred to placebo by most subjects, 2 mg diazepam and placebo were chosen equally. However, placebo was chosen over higher doses (5 and 10 mg) of diazepam and 5 mg d-amphetamine was preferred to 2 mg diazepam. Subjective effects were assessed using the Profile of Mood States (POMS) before drug was taken and 1, 3, and 6 h later. Compared to placebo, amphetamine produced changes in mood on the POMS including increases in Vigor and Arousal. Doses of 5 and 10 mg diazepam produced decreases in Vigor and Arousal and increases in Fatigue and Confusion. The effects of diazepam were most pronounced 1 h after ingestion and appeared dose-dependent. For one subject who consistently chose diazepam, its subjective effects were similar to placebo and he stated that he could not distinguish them. These results are discussed in terms of the abuse liability of diazepam.

Key words

Amphetamine Diazepam Drug preference Subjective effects POMS Humans Abuse liability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Balster RL, Schuster CR (1973) A comparison of d-amphetamine, l-amphetamine and methamphetamine self-administration in rhesus monkeys. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1:67–71Google Scholar
  2. Bigelow G, Griffiths RR, Liebson I (1976) Effects of response requirement upon human sedative self-administration and drug-seeking behavior. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 5:681–685Google Scholar
  3. Edwards AL (1972) Experimental design in psychological research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Findley JD, Robinson WW, Peregrino L (1972) Addiction to secobarbital and chlordiazepoxide in the rhesus monkey by means of a self-infusion preference procedure. Psychopharmacologia 26:93–114Google Scholar
  5. Fisher RA (1951) The design of experiments (6th edn). Oliver and Boyd, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  6. Gotestam KG (1973) Intragastric self-administration of medazepam in rats. Psychopharmacologia 28:87–94Google Scholar
  7. Griffiths RR, Bigelow G, Liebson I (1976) Human sedative self-administration: effects of interingestion interval and dose. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 197:488–494Google Scholar
  8. Griffiths RR, Bigelow G, Liebson I (1979) Human drug self-administration: double-blind comparison of pentobarbital, diazepam, chlorpromazine and placebo. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 210:301–310Google Scholar
  9. Hackett D, Hall JM (1976) Reinforcing properties of intravenous diazepam in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) with a history of codeine self-administration. Clinical Toxicology Proceeding of the 18th Meeting of the European Society of Toxicology. Duncan WAM (ed). Edinburgh, Scotland, p 308–310Google Scholar
  10. Harris RT, Claghorn JL, Schoolar JC (1968) Self-administration of minor tranquilizers as a function of conditioning. Psychopharmacologia 13:81–88Google Scholar
  11. Johanson CE (1978) Drugs as reinforcers In: Blackman DE, Sanger DJ (eds) Contemporary research in behavioral pharmacology. Plenum Press, New York, p 325–390Google Scholar
  12. Johanson CE, Uhlenhuth EH (1980) Drug preference and mood in humans. d-Amphetamine. Psychopharmacology (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Marks J (1978) The benzodiazepines use, overuse, misuse, abuse. M.T.P. Press, Lancaster, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  14. McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF (1971) Profile of mood states (Manual). Educational and Industrial Testing Service. San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  15. Pickens R, Harris W (1968) Self-administration of d-amphetamine by rats. Psychopharmacologia 12:158–163Google Scholar
  16. Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd edn). McGraw-Hill, New York, p 199–200Google Scholar
  17. Wise RA, Yokel RA, de Wit H (1976) Both positive reinforcement and conditioned aversion from amphetamine and apomorphine in rats. Science 191:1273–1275Google Scholar
  18. Yanagita T, Takahashi S (1973) Dependence liability of several sedative-hypnotic agents evaluated in monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 185:307–316Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. E. Johanson
    • 1
  • E. H. Uhlenhuth
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry, University of ChicagoPritzker School of MedicineChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations