, Volume 220, Issue 1, pp 155–161 | Cite as

The effects of acute doses of nicotine on video lottery terminal gambling in daily smokers

  • Daniel S. McGrath
  • Sean P. Barrett
  • Sherry H. Stewart
  • Evan A. Schmid
Original Investigation



A growing body of evidence suggests that gambling frequently co-occurs with smoking, yet little is known about the degree to which nicotine and/or tobacco use influences gambling behavior. Nonetheless, an increasing number of studies suggest that acute administration of nicotine may alter other reinforcing behaviors in both animal and human models, raising the possibility that nicotine may also influence gambling behavior and craving.


The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of nicotine on subjective and behavioral gambling responses.


Twenty-eight (15 male) regular gamblers who smoke daily completed two double-blind laboratory sessions where their subjective and behavioral responses to video lottery terminal (VLT) gambling were assessed, following the administration of nicotine inhalers (NI; 4 mg deliverable) or placebo inhalers.


NI significantly decreased tobacco-related cravings (p < 0.05) but did not affect gambling-related cravings, VLT betting patterns, or subjective responses (ps > 0.1).


NI were found to acutely suppress tobacco-related cravings without influencing gambling. These results suggest that use of nicotine replacement therapies may be a safe option for gamblers who are attempting to quit smoking.


Nicotine Tobacco Gambling Drug Co-morbidity Addiction 



The authors would like to acknowledge Lyndsay Bozec’s assistance with participant recruitment and phone screening. This work was supported by student research grants awarded to Daniel McGrath from the Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative and Gambling Awareness Nova Scotia. Daniel McGrath was funded by studentships from the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation and the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre during the completion of this research.


  1. Al-Adawi S, Powell J (1997) The influence of smoking on reward responsiveness and cognitive functions: a natural experiment. Addiction 92:1773–1782. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1997.9212177318.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders, third edition—revised (DSM-III-R). APA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr RS, Pizzagalli DA, Culhane MA, Goff DC, Evins AE (2008) A single dose of nicotine enhances reward responsiveness in nonsmokers: implications for development of dependence. Biol Psychiatry 63:1061–1065. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.09.015 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW (1994) Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 50:7–15. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H (2000) Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain 123:2189–2202. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.11.2189 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benowitz NL, Jacob P III, Ahijevych K, Jarvis MJ, Hall S, LeHouezec J, Velicer W (2002) Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation. Nicotine Tob Res 4:149–159. doi: 10.1080/14622200210123581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bickel WK, Odum AL, Madden GJ (1999) Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology 146:447–454. doi: 10.1007/PL00005490 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bond A, Lader M (1974) The use of analogue scales in rating subjective feelings. Br J Med Psychol 47:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Businelle MS, Kendzor DE, Rash CJ, Patterson SM, Coffey SF, Copeland AL (2009) Heavy smokers perform more poorly than nonsmokers on a simulated task of gambling. Subst Use Misuse 44:905–914. doi: 10.1080/10826080802484173 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaudhri N, Caggiula AR, Donny EC, Palmatier MI, Liu X, Sved AF (2006) Complex interactions between nicotine and nonpharmacological stimuli reveal multiple roles for nicotine in reinforcement. Psychopharmacology 184:353–366. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0178-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaudhri N, Caggiula AR, Donny EC, Booth S, Gharib M, Craven L, Palmatier MI, Liu X, Sved AF (2007) Self-administered and noncontingent nicotine enhance reinforced operant responding in rats: impact of nicotine dose and reinforcement schedule. Psychopharmacology 190:353–362. doi: 10.1007/s00213-006-0454-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham-Williams RM, Cottler LB, Compton WM, Spitznagel EL (1998) Taking chances: problem gamblers and mental health disorders: results from the St Louis Epidemiologic Catchment Area study. Am J Public Health 88:1093–1096. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.88.7.1093 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawkins L, Powell JH, West R, Powell J, Pickering A (2006) A double-blind placebo controlled experimental study of nicotine: I—effects on incentive motivation. Psychopharmacology 189:355–367. doi: 10.1007/s00213-006-0588-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delfabbro PH, Winefield AH (1999) Poker-machine gambling: an analysis of within session characteristics. Br J Psychol 90:425–439. doi: 10.1348/000712699161503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donny EC, Chaudhri N, Caggiula AR, Evans-Martin FF, Booth S, Gharib MA, Clements LA, Sved AF (2003) Operant responding for a visual reinforcer in rats is enhanced by noncontingent nicotine: implications for nicotine self-administration and reinforcement. Psychopharmacology 169:68–76. doi: 10.1007/s00213-003-1473-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellery M, Stewart SH, Loba P (2005) Alcohol’s effects on video lottery terminal (VLT) play among probable pathological and non-pathological gamblers. J Gambl Stud 21:299–324. doi: 10.1007/s10899-005-3101-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grant JE, Potenza MN (2005) Tobacco use and pathological gambling. Ann Clin Psychiatry 17:237–241. doi: 10.1080/10401230500295370 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerström KO (1991) The Fagerström Test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict 86:1119–1127. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lesieur HR, Blume SB (1987) South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry 144:1184–1188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Matta SG, Balfour DJ, Benowitz NL et al (2007) Guidelines on nicotine dose selection for in vivo research. Psychopharmacology 190:269–319. doi: 10.1007/s00213-006-0441-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McEwen A, West R, Gaiger M (2008) Nicotine absorption from seven current nicotine replacement products and a new wide-bore nicotine delivery device. J Smoking Cess 3:117–123. doi: 10.1375/jsc.3.2.117 Google Scholar
  22. McGrath DS, Barrett SP (2009) The comorbidity of tobacco smoking and gambling: a review of the literature. Drug Alcohol Rev 28:676–681. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00097.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meneses-Gaya IC, Zuardi AW, Loureiro SR, Crippa JA (2009) Psychometric properties of the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence. J Bras Pneumol 35:73–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ohmura Y, Takahashi T, Kitamura N (2005) Discounting delayed and probabilistic monetary gains and losses by smokers of cigarettes. Psychopharmacology 182:508–515. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0110-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Palmatier MI, Evans-Martin FF, Hoffman A, Caggiula AR, Chaudhri N, Donny EC, Liu X, Booth S, Gharib M, Craven L, Sved AF (2006) Dissociating the primary reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing effects of nicotine using a rat self-administration paradigm with concurrently available drug and environmental reinforcers. Psychopharmacology 184:391–400. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0183-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmatier MI, Coddington SB, Liu X, Donny EC, Caggiula AR, Sved AF (2008) The motivation to obtain nicotine-conditioned reinforcers depends on nicotine dose. Neuropharmacology 55:1425–1430. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.09.002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perkins KA, Grottenthaler A, Wilson AS (2009) Lack of reinforcement enhancing effects of nicotine in non-dependent smokers. Psychopharmacology 205:635–645. doi: 10.1007/s00213-009-1574-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petry NM (2001) Pathological gamblers, with and without substance use disorders, discount delayed rewards at high rates. J Abnorm Psychol 110:482–487. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.482 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Petry NM, Casarella T (1999) Excessive discounting of delayed rewards in substance abusers with gambling problems. Drug Alcohol Depend 56:25–32. doi: 10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00010-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petry NM, Oncken C (2002) Cigarette smoking is associated with increased severity of gambling problems in treatment-seeking gamblers. Addiction 97:745–753. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00163.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Powell J, Dawkins L, Davis RE (2002) Smoking, reward responsiveness, and response inhibition: tests of an incentive motivation model. Biol Psychiatry 51:151–163. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01208-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reid M, Mickalian J, Delucchi K, Hall S, Berger S (1998) An acute dose of nicotine enhances cue-induced cocaine craving. Drug Alcohol Depen 49:95–104. doi: 10.1016/S0376-8716(97)00144-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reynolds B (2004) Do high rates of cigarette consumption increase delay discounting? A cross-sectional comparison of adolescent smokers and young-adult smokers and nonsmokers. Behav Processes 67:545–549. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2004.08.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reynolds B (2006) A review of delay-discounting research with humans: relations to drug use and gambling. Behav Pharmacol 17:651–667. doi: 10.1097/FBP.0b013e3280115f99 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider NG, Olmstead RE, Franzon MA, Lunell E (2001) The nicotine inhaler: clinical pharmacokinetics and comparison with other nicotine treatments. Clin Pharmacokinet 40:661–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schneider NG, Terrace S, Koury MA, Patel S, Vaghaiwalla B, Pendergrass R, Olmstead RE, Cortner C (2005) Comparison of three nicotine treatments: initial reactions and preferences with guided use. Psychopharmacology 182:545–550. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0123-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schneider NG, Cortner C, Gould JL, Koury MA, Olmstead RE (2008) Comparison of craving and withdrawal among four combination nicotine treatments. Hum Psychopharmacol 23:513–517. doi: 10.1002/hup.947 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shiffman S, Ferguson SG, Gwaltney CJ, Balabanis MH, Shadel WG (2006) Reduction of abstinence-induced withdrawal and craving using high-dose nicotine replacement therapy. Psychopharmacology 184:637–644. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0184-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smart RG, Ferris J (1996) Alcohol, drugs and gambling in the Ontario adult population, 1994. Can J Psychiatry 41:36–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Stewart SH, Jefferson S (2007) Experimental methodologies in gambling studies. In: Smith G, Hodgins DC, Williams RJ (eds) Research and measurement issues in gambling studies. Elsevier, New York, pp 87–110Google Scholar
  41. Stewart SH, Blackburn JR, Klein RM (2000) Against the odds: establishment of a video lottery terminal research laboratory in a naturalistic setting. Nova Scotia Psychologist 11:3–6Google Scholar
  42. Stewart SH, Collins P, Blackburn JR, Ellery M, Klein RM (2005) Heart rate increase to alcohol administration and video lottery terminal (VLT) play among regular VLT players. Psychol Addict Behav 19:94–98. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.19.1.94 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stewart SH, Peterson JB, Collins P, Eisner S, Ellery M (2006) Heart rate increase to alcohol administration and video lottery terminal (VLT) play among probable pathological gamblers and non-pathological gamblers. Psychol Addict Behav 20:53–61. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.20.1.53 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. West BT (2009) Analyzing longitudinal data with the linear mixed models procedure in SPSS. Eval Health Prof 32:207–228. doi: 10.1177/0163278709338554 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wulfert E, Maxson J, Jardin B (2009) Cue-specific reactivity in experienced gamblers. Psychol Addict Behav 23:731–735. doi: 10.1037/a0017134 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zack M, Poulos CX (2004) Amphetamine primes motivation to gamble and gambling-related semantic networks in problem gamblers. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:195–207. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300333 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel S. McGrath
    • 1
  • Sean P. Barrett
    • 2
  • Sherry H. Stewart
    • 2
  • Evan A. Schmid
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Department of Psychology & PsychiatryDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations