Indeed, EMA studies have shown no relationship between smoking and negative affect (Carter

et al., 2008, Shiffman et al., 2002 and Shiffman et al., 2004a). At the same time, EMA data (Shiffman et al., 1996 and Shiffman and Waters, 2004) show that this association is quite strong when smokers http://www.selleckchem.com/products/MDV3100.html are quitting. These context-specific differences underscore how such associations may vary according to abstinence status and phase of smoking; thus, the relationships described by the WISDM during ad lib. smoking may not apply when smokers are quitting. This issue requires further study. We had hypothesized that ITS would have more jagged or scattered profiles of motives, emphasizing a few particular motives over others, but this was not supported. It appears that individual ITS, like DS, smoke for multiple reasons, rather than for just one or two. This diversity of motives may strongly root smoking in ITS’ behavioral repertoires, helping to explain I-BET151 ic50 why they have so much trouble giving up smoking, as indicated by analyses of national data (Tindle and Shiffman, 2011) showing that almost 80% of ITS’ quit efforts fail. Surprisingly, CITS and NITS did not differ in their profile across the standardized WISDM motives. However, CITS scored higher on PDM, and lower on SDM, mirroring in a more subtle way the pattern seen for DS.

Despite their history of daily smoking, CITS differed from DS much in the way NITS did. This suggests that, regardless of past history of daily smoking, individuals who now smoke intermittently emphasize situational motives to smoke, more than motives reflecting constant smoking or loss of control. The cross-sectional

design of this study precludes knowing whether the observed differences in smoking motives are causes or effects of subjects’ smoking status. Thus, we cannot say whether CITS’ profile of motives shifted as they changed from DS to CITS, or whether their NITS-like Adenylyl cyclase profile reflects a pre-existing variation in motives that enabled them to evolve from DS to ITS. Similarly, it remains unclear whether smokers who start their careers with a particular motives profile are able to avoid progressing to daily and dependent smoking and thus become ITS, or, alternatively, whether all smokers begin with similar profiles, but the profile shifts as most progress to daily smoking. Fundamentally, then, this study cannot determine the underlying causal factors that make some smokers DS and others ITS. It is likely that genetic factors play some role (Sullivan and Kendler, 1999). However, given ITS’ rapidly increasing prevalence in the last decade alone, environmental forces such as smoking restrictions likely promote ITS’ smoking behavior, perhaps interacting with genetic factors (Boardman, 2009, Boardman et al., 2010 and Shiffman, 2009). The study does, however, shed light on the dependence and motives of ITS.