Limitations selleck chem and Future Directions These findings should be interpreted in the context of the study��s limitations. First, this is a laboratory study with adolescents who are not necessarily interested in quitting. Although findings demonstrate the acute effects of smoking abstinence, these laboratory assessments may not directly translate to the real-world experience of motivated quitters making a quit attempt. More naturalistic designs (i.e., the use of ecological momentary assessment of withdrawal effects) will be important for future research. In addition, the current design cannot disentangle the effects of abstinence from nicotine specifically versus withdrawal from the behavioral and psychological effects of smoking abstinence more generally.

Our findings should be followed up with studies that include additional comparison groups that decouple the effects of smoking and nicotine. For example, we recently found that sensorimotor replacement for smoking was more effective than nicotine replacement at reversing abstinence-induced craving, nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and usual-brand smoking among adult smokers with and without serious mental illness (Tidey, Rohsenow, Kaplan, Swift, & AhnAllen, 2012). Similar studies in adolescents could indicate whether temporary substitution of very low nicotine cigarettes for nicotine-containing cigarettes may provide a pathway toward reducing nicotine dependence in this population. Supplementary Material Supplementary Table 1 can be found online at http://www.ntr.oxfordjournals.org Funding This research was supported by grant R01 CA80255 awarded to Dr.

Colby from the National Cancer Institute. Declaration of interests None declared. Acknowledgment We thank Dr. Michael Sayette for his comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Cigarette smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the United States (Centers for Disease Control, 2009). Although considerable effort has been made to prevent smoking and promote cessation among current smokers (Piasecki, 2006; Shiffman, Pillitteri, Burton, & Marino, 2004), the central challenge is devising methods to combat smoking relapse (Piasecki, 2006). Relapse is the modal outcome for even the best smoking interventions (Piasecki, Fiore, McCarthy, & Baker, 2002; Shiffman et al., 1996), and there is no safe point beyond which relapse does not occur (Ockene et al.

, 2000). One Entinostat line of research on antismoking appeals has investigated how visual smoking cues and strength of antismoking arguments influence various outcomes, finding unintended negative effects of such cues��specifically that exposure to ads with smoking cues and weak arguments can increase smoking urges in smokers (Kang, Cappella, Strasser, & Lerman, 2009). Relapse must be avoided if smoking cessation programs are to be successful (Warner, 2002).