, Volume 184, Issue 3–4, pp 600–607 | Cite as

Sex differences in the influence of nicotine dose instructions on the reinforcing and self-reported rewarding effects of smoking

  • Kenneth A. Perkins
  • Todd Doyle
  • Melinda Ciccocioppo
  • Cynthia Conklin
  • Michael Sayette
  • Anthony Caggiula
Original Investigation



Compared to men, the smoking behavior of women may be less responsive to nicotine and more responsive to nonpharmacological factors, perhaps including verbal information (e.g., dose instructions).


This study compared the influence of the presence vs absence of dose instructions on the subjective and reinforcing effects of nicotine via cigarette smoking in men and women.


Subjects (n=120) abstained overnight from smoking and were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Half of the subjects received nicotine cigarettes (Quest 1, yield of 0.6 mg), and the other half received denicotinized cigarettes (“denic”; Quest 3, yield of 0.05 mg). Furthermore, half of each subsample was accurately instructed they were receiving a “normal nicotine” or a “no nicotine” cigarette, while the other half received no instructions. Subjects completed baseline measures of craving and mood (positive and negative affect), took two puffs from the cigarette after receiving dose instructions or no instructions, and then rated the cigarette's “reward” value (liking, satisfying) and other characteristics. They also repeated the craving and mood measures. Subjects then smoked more of that same brand ad libitum over the next 30 min to measure reinforcement (puff number and latency to first puff).


Overall, nicotine increased reward, other cigarette ratings, and positive affect, but did not affect craving or smoking behavior. However, results varied by sex. Dose instructions enhanced the effects of nicotine on smoking reward and reinforcement in women, while instructions tended to dampen or even reverse these effects of nicotine in men (i.e., interaction of sex×nicotine×instructions).


In women but not in men, the influence of nicotine on smoking reward and reinforcement is enhanced by accurate verbal information about the cigarette's nicotine dose. These results are consistent with the notion that the smoking behavior of women, relative to men, may be more responsive to nonpharmacological factors.


Nicotine Dose instructions Sex differences Reinforcement Smoking reward 


  1. Bradlyn AS, Young LD (1983) Parameters influencing the effectiveness of the balanced placebo design in alcohol research. In: Pohorecky LA, Brick J (eds) Stress and alcohol use. Elsevier Science, New York, pp 87–103Google Scholar
  2. Brauer LH, Behm FM, Lane JD, Westman EC, Perkins C, Rose JE (2001) Individual differences in smoking reward from de-nicotinized cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res 3:101–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter BL, Tiffany ST (2001) The cue-availability paradigm: the effects of cigarette availability on cue reactivity in smokers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 9:183–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (2003) Cigarette smoking behavior of adults: United States, 1997–98. Advance Data, no. 331Google Scholar
  5. Chaudhri N, Caggiula AR, Donny EC, Booth S, Gharib MA, Craven LA, Allen SS, Sved AF, Perkins KA (2005) Sex differences in the contribution of nicotine and nonpharmacological stimuli to nicotine self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology 180:258–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Conklin CA, Perkins KA (2005) Subjective and reinforcing effects of smoking during negative mood induction. J Abnorm Psychol 114:153–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Diener E, Emmons RA (1984) The independence of positive and negative affect. J Pers Soc Psychol 47:1105–1117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fillmore M, Vogel-Sprott M (1992) Expected effect of caffeine on motor performance predicts the type of response to placebo. Psychopharmacology 106:209–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom K-O (1991) The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict 86:1119–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes JR, Gulliver SB, Amori G, Mireault GC, Fenwick JF (1989) Effect of instructions and nicotine on smoking cessation, withdrawal symptoms, and self-administration of nicotine gum. Psychopharmacology 99:486–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Huitema BE (1980) Analysis of covariance and alternatives. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Juliano LM, Brandon TH (2002) Effects of nicotine dose, instructional set, and outcome expectancies on the subjective effects of smoking in the presence of a stressor. J Abnorm Psychol 111:88–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirsch I (1997) Specifying nonspecifics: psychological mechanisms of placebo effects. In: Harrington A (ed) The placebo effect: an interdisciplinary exploration. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, pp 166–186Google Scholar
  14. Kirsch I, Rodino MJ (1993) Do double-blind studies with informed consent yield externally valid results? Psychopharmacology 110:437–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lukas SE, Sholar MB, Fortin M, Wines J, Mendelson JH (1996) Sex differences in plasma cocaine levels and subjective effects after acute cocaine administration in human volunteers. Psychopharmacology 125:346–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin CS, Sayette MA (1993) Experimental design in alcohol administration research: limitations and alternatives in the manipulation of dosage-set. J Stud Alcohol 54:750–761PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mikalsen A, Bertelsen B, Flaten MA (2001) Effects of caffeine, caffeine-associated stimuli, and caffeine-related information on physiological and psychological arousal. Psychopharmacology 157:373–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Nash JM, Holroyd KA, Rokicki LA, Kvaal S, Penzien DB (2002) The influence of placebo awareness on stimulant drug response in a double-blind trial. Psychopharmacology 161:213–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Perkins KA (1996) Sex differences in nicotine versus non-nicotine reinforcement as determinants of tobacco smoking. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 4:166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Perkins KA, Grobe JE, D'Amico D, Fonte C, Wilson A, Stiller RL (1996) Low-dose nicotine nasal spray use and effects during initial smoking cessation. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 4:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perkins KA, Grobe JE, Caggiula AC (1997) Acute reinforcing effects of low-dose nicotine nasal spray in humans. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 56:235–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Perkins KA, Donny E, Caggiula AR (1999) Sex differences in nicotine effects and self-administration: review of human and animal evidence. Nicotine Tob Res 1:301–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Perkins KA, Gerlach D, Vender J, Grobe JE, Meeker J, Hutchison S (2001) Sex differences in the subjective and reinforcing effects of visual and olfactory cigarette smoke stimuli. Nicotine Tob Res 3:141–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Perkins KA, Jacobs L, Sanders M, Caggiula A (2002) Sex differences in the subjective and reinforcing effects of cigarette nicotine dose. Psychopharmacology 163:194–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Perkins KA, Sayette M, Conklin CA, Caggiula AR (2003) Placebo effects of tobacco smoking and other nicotine intake. Nicotine Tob Res 5:695–709CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Perkins KA, Jacobs L, Ciccocioppo M, Conklin CA, Sayette M, Caggiula A (2004) The influence of instructions and nicotine dose on the subjective and reinforcing effects of smoking. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 12:91–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Robbins SJ, Ehrman RN, Childress AR, O'Brien CP (1999) Comparing levels of cocaine cue reactivity in male and female outpatients. Drug Alcohol Depend 53:223–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts TA, Pennebaker JW (1995) Gender differences in perceiving internal states: toward a his-and-hers model of perceptual cues. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 27:143–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rose JE, Behm FM, Westman EC, Bates JE, Salley A (2003) Pharmacologic and sensorimotor components of satiation in cigarette smoking. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 76:243–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Tiffany ST, Drobes DJ (1991) The development and initial validation of a questionnaire of smoking urges. Br J Addict 86:1467–1476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Tremblay L, Elliott D, Starkes JL (2004) Gender differences in perception of self-orientation: software or hardware? Perception 33:329–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Walach H, Schmidt S, Dirhold T, Nosch S (2002) The effects of a caffeine placebo and suggestion on blood pressure, heart rate, well-being and cognitive performance. Int J Psychophysiol 43:247–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Westman EC, Behm FM, Rose JE (1996) Dissociating the nicotine and airway sensory effects of smoking. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 53:309–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth A. Perkins
    • 1
    • 3
  • Todd Doyle
    • 1
  • Melinda Ciccocioppo
    • 1
  • Cynthia Conklin
    • 1
  • Michael Sayette
    • 2
  • Anthony Caggiula
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Western Psychiatric Institute and ClinicUniversity of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations