In other words, DS’ profiles emphasized motives associated with traditional models of dependence (so-called “trough maintenance”; Russell, 1971), whereas ITS’ profiles did not. The motives most important in DS’ profiles reflect dependence processes that lead to greater tobacco consumption, more continuous consumption, and loss of voluntary control see more – core characteristics of dependence. In contrast, ITS endorse motives that facilitate tobacco use even if one is not nicotine dependent in the traditional sense, and not smoking continuously (so called “peak-seeking”; Russell,
1971). Further, the motives most highly endorsed by ITS – Social Goads and Cue Exposure – imply being motivated to smoke in particular circumstances and in response to particular cues, rather than needing to smoking continually, which would be a hallmark of dependent smoking, as conventionally construed. Thus, the analysis of standardized WISDM profiles demonstrates that there are qualitative as well as quantitative differences in DS’ and ITS’ motives for smoking. Our findings validate the proposed distinction (Piasecki et al., 2010a and Piper et al., 2008) between PDM
and SDM: In analyses across all motives, with no preconceived organization of motives into PDM and SDM, DS emphasized motives that were part of the PDM cluster, while ITS emphasized motives associated with SDM. Differences between DS and ITS on scales within the standardized selleck kinase inhibitor profiles (Fig. 1a) map remarkably well onto the assignment of scales to PDM and SDM (Piper et al., 2008), and our analysis of the secondary factor scores confirm the pattern. Our findings are also roughly consistent with the hypothesis put forth by Piper et al. (2008) and Piasecki et al. (2010a) that motives such as Craving, Automaticity, and Loss of Control (which Calpain were relatively more important among DS than ITS) emerge only after smokers progress to smoking heavily and develop other hallmarks
of nicotine dependence (as traditionally defined), whereas other motives develop and increase well before this. We find these “primary” motives to be relatively more important among DS than ITS. However, Piper et al. (2004) also identified Behavioral Choice, Cognitive Enhancement, and Positive and Negative Reinforcement as late-emerging motives, yet we found that ITS give similar or even more weight to these motives relative to others. This may reflect the fact that ITS are not novice smokers, having smoked an average of 42,850 cigarettes (Shiffman et al., 2012c), so may well evince late-emerging motives, consistent with our observation (Shiffman et al., 2012b) that ITS do exhibit signs of dependence.