Abstract
Smoking is a form of behavior: the inhalation of smoke from burning tobacco or other plant material, sustained in most users by addiction to nicotine. Cognitive psychology treats it less as a chemical habit than as a disorder of motivated choice defined by three signatures. Nicotine and smoking cues capture attention, producing an attentional bias that tracks craving and relapse, while smokers also discount delayed rewards more steeply than non-smokers, choosing smaller-sooner outcomes in a measurable failure of intertemporal choice. Repeated use sensitizes the brain's wanting system, so that cues trigger craving that outlives any pleasure the cigarette delivers. Three interactive demonstrations trace cue-driven attentional capture, steep delay discounting, and the growth of cue-elicited craving.
Keywords: nicotine, attentional bias, delay discounting, craving, addiction
A smoker who means to quit will often describe the failure in cognitive terms without naming them. A cigarette is noticed before it is decided on; the hand moves to the pack at the sight of a lighter or the end of a meal. The promise of better health next year loses, reliably, to the pull of the next few minutes. And the craving that returns at the smell of smoke months after the last cigarette is not hunger for pleasure—the pleasure faded long ago—but something harder to place. Each of these is a well-characterised distortion of a normal cognitive system: of attention, of intertemporal decision making, and of reward learning (West, 2017).
Smoking remains one of the largest preventable causes of death worldwide, responsible for the tobacco-attributable disease burden tracked across more than 200 countries (GBD 2019 Tobacco Collaborators, 2021). But its grip is not primarily pharmacological inertia. Nicotine is cleared from the body within hours, yet relapse rates stay high for years, because the drug has, over thousands of pairings, rewired how the smoker's cognitive systems weigh cues, time, and reward (Benowitz, 2010; Picciotto & Mineur, 2014). This article treats smoking as cognitive psychology does: as a window onto what addiction does to attention, choice, and craving.
- Smoking is the inhalation of smoke—most often from tobacco—maintained in dependent users by nicotine acting on the brain's reward circuitry; MeSH files it as a kind of behavior.
- Smoking-related stimuli capture attention: smokers detect, orient to, and dwell on cigarette cues faster than neutral stimuli, an attentional bias that rises with craving and predicts relapse.
- Smokers show steep delay discounting—delayed rewards lose value quickly with time—so they favour smaller-sooner over larger-later outcomes, a marker of impulsive intertemporal choice.
- Repeated nicotine use sensitizes the mesolimbic wanting system, so cues trigger craving that outlasts the pleasure of smoking—the incentive-sensitization signature of addiction.
- Acute nicotine modestly sharpens attention and speeds responding, but much of this gain is withdrawal relief rather than net enhancement; abstinence degrades attention and working memory until the next dose.
What Smoking Is
Smoking is the act of inhaling smoke produced by burning plant material, delivering its active compounds across the vast surface of the lungs into arterial blood and to the brain within seconds. In the overwhelming majority of cases the plant is tobacco and the compound that sustains the behavior is nicotine, an agonist at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors that triggers dopamine release in the mesolimbic reward pathway (Benowitz, 2009; Picciotto & Mineur, 2014). The pulmonary route is what makes smoking so addictive: it produces a rapid arterial bolus of nicotine with each puff, so a pack-a-day smoker self-administers hundreds of tightly timed, individually reinforcing doses a day, pairing the drug with every cue in the surrounding environment.
That dosing schedule is the cognitive heart of the matter. A behavior repeated and rewarded this often, in this many contexts, becomes bound to its cues and progressively automatic—the smoker reaches for a cigarette before deciding to. Nicotine addiction therefore sits at the intersection of pharmacology and learning: the drug supplies the reinforcement, but the enduring disorder is one of conditioned attention, valuation, and motivation that persists long after the nicotine has cleared (Benowitz, 2010; Koob & Volkow, 2016).
Figure 1
The Cue–Craving–Use Loop of Smoking
Types of Smoking
In the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary, Smoking (D012907) is filed directly under behavior (D001519), and MeSH records five narrower descriptors beneath it, distinguished chiefly by what is burned and how the smoke is delivered. MeSH is an indexing classification built for retrieving the biomedical literature, not a theory of how smoking is organised cognitively; its hierarchy reflects historical indexing practice rather than any mechanistic distinction, and the pharmacological route that matters for addiction cuts across these categories rather than following them.
| Narrower MeSH descriptor | What it denotes |
|---|---|
| Pipe Smoking | Smoking tobacco in a pipe, in which smoke is typically held in the mouth rather than deeply inhaled, altering the pattern of nicotine delivery. |
| Smoking Reduction | A deliberate decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked, often as a step toward cessation or as harm reduction rather than abstinence. |
| Smoking, Non-Tobacco Products | Smoking of plant material other than tobacco, such as herbal preparations, where nicotine may be absent but the inhalation behavior and its cues persist. |
| Tobacco Smoking | Smoking of tobacco specifically, in any form—cigarette, cigar, or pipe—the dominant and most-studied case, and the one that carries the nicotine on which dependence forms. |
| Vaping | Inhalation of aerosol from an electronic cigarette, which delivers nicotine without combustion; strictly an inhalation behavior rather than smoking, but filed here for its close functional kinship. |
Of these five, only Smoking Reduction currently has its own article on this site; the other terms are listed but not yet linked. The grouping is worth reading cognitively rather than only medically: whatever the plant or the device, the behavior that each descriptor names is the same conditioned loop of cue, craving, inhalation, and reinforcement, which is why the cognitive accounts below apply across the family even where the pharmacology differs (Benowitz, 2010).
Smoking and Cognition
Cognitive psychology studies smoking through the systems nicotine recruits and distorts. Three are central—attention, intertemporal decision making, and reward learning—and each gives a measurable laboratory signature that distinguishes smokers from non-smokers and tracks the clinical course of dependence. They are not separate disorders but three faces of one adaptation: a brain that has learned, over hundreds of thousands of reinforced puffs, to treat smoking cues as urgent, to value the immediate over the delayed, and to want the drug independently of how much it is enjoyed (Robinson & Berridge, 1993; Koob & Volkow, 2016).
Attentional bias to smoking cues
The first signature is a bias of attention. In tasks such as the modified Stroop and the visual dot-probe, smokers are slower to name the colour of smoking-related words and faster to respond to probes that appear where a smoking image had been—both indices that cigarette cues capture and hold attention more than neutral stimuli do (Field & Cox, 2008). This attentional bias is not a static trait. It waxes with craving and nicotine deprivation and wanes after smoking, and its magnitude correlates with subjective urge and, in several studies, with the probability of relapse. Attention and motivation are coupled: a cue that has been paired with reward acquires incentive salience, and incentive salience is cashed out partly as a pull on the attentional system (Robinson & Berridge, 1993). Neuroimaging of smoking cue reactivity shows that the same cues that bias attention also activate reward and salience regions, and that this reactivity is modulated by deprivation and predicts outcomes (Jasinska et al., 2014). Demo 1 reconstructs the dot-probe logic that reveals the bias.
Demo 1 · Attentional bias in the dot-probe task
A smoking cue and a neutral cue flash side by side; a probe then replaces one of them and the viewer responds to it. Smokers respond faster when the probe falls behind the smoking cue, because the cue has already pulled attention to that location. Move the craving / deprivation slider and choose where the probe appears.
Note. Illustrative model of the dot-probe logic after Field and Cox (2008); baseline 500 ms with a bias that scales linearly with craving to a representative maximum of 80 ms. Real values vary across observers and studies. Computed locally, not stored.
Delay discounting and impulsive choice
The second signature is in how smokers value the future. Delay discounting is the decline in the subjective value of a reward as its receipt is pushed further away; everyone discounts, but the steepness varies, and steep discounting is a hallmark of impulsive intertemporal choice. In a foundational study, Bickel and colleagues found that current smokers discounted delayed money far more steeply than never-smokers, with ex-smokers in between—a graded relationship between the behavior and the decision-making distortion (Bickel et al., 1999). The discount is well described by a hyperbolic function, in which value falls sharply over short delays and then levels off, so that a near-term reward dominates choice out of proportion to its size. This is the arithmetic of one more cigarette now defeating healthy lungs in a decade: the distant benefit is discounted into near-irrelevance while the immediate relief retains its full force. The worked example below quantifies the gap between a steep and a shallow discounter, and Demo 2 makes the discount curve directly adjustable.
Demo 2 · How steeply is the future discounted?
The present value of a delayed reward is V = A / (1 + kD). A steep discounter (large k, typical of smokers) loses the future fast; a shallow one holds its value. The dashed line is an immediate offer; where a curve crosses it is the indifference delay, beyond which the smaller-sooner option wins.
■ smoker k=0.05 ■ never-smoker k=0.01 ■ your curve
Note. Hyperbolic model after Bickel et al. (1999), with representative rates (smoker k ≈ 0.05/day, never-smoker k ≈ 0.01/day). The defaults reproduce the article's Worked Example. Computed locally, not stored.
Craving, cue reactivity, and incentive sensitization
The third signature is craving, and its cognitive explanation is the incentive-sensitization theory. Repeated nicotine amplifies the mesolimbic dopamine system that computes wanting—the motivational pull a reward and its cues acquire—while the liking, the hedonic pleasure, does not grow and often fades. The result is the defining paradox of dependence: the smoker craves cigarettes most when enjoying them least, and cues can trigger intense craving after long abstinence because sensitized wanting is durable (Robinson & Berridge, 1993; Sayette, 2016). Craving is not a unitary feeling but a cognitive-motivational state that narrows attention onto the drug, biases decision making toward obtaining it, and is reliably provoked in the laboratory by presenting smoking cues—the cue-reactivity paradigm whose neural signature overlaps with the attentional and reward circuits above (Jasinska et al., 2014). Because the wanting system is sensitized rather than merely satisfied, abstinence does not extinguish it; it leaves it primed. Demo 3 grows cue-elicited craving across repeated pairings and shows it persisting through a quit attempt.
Demo 3 · Wanting sensitizes while liking fades
Each cue–cigarette pairing strengthens cue-elicited wanting (craving) but not liking (pleasure), which habituates. After a quit attempt (no more pairings), the sensitized wanting does not vanish — it stays primed, which is why a cue can trigger relapse long into abstinence.
■ wanting (craving) ■ liking (pleasure)
Note. Illustrative incentive-sensitization model after Robinson and Berridge (1993): wanting Wn = 100[1 − (1 − s)n], liking Ln = 70(0.92)n, pairings capped at the quit. Representative values, not data. Computed locally, not stored.
The cognitive cost of nicotine and its withdrawal
A persistent folk belief holds that smoking sharpens the mind. Acute nicotine does produce small, real improvements in sustained attention, response speed, and some memory measures in meta-analysis (Heishman et al., 2010). But the gains are modest and, crucially, much of what a dependent smoker experiences as enhancement is the relief of withdrawal rather than performance lifted above a non-smoker's baseline. Abstinence in a dependent smoker degrades attention, working memory, and impulse control within hours, and these deficits are themselves a potent driver of relapse because smoking reverses them (Ashare et al., 2014; Hughes, 2007). Repeated use also builds tolerance—more nicotine is needed to achieve a given effect—so the dose required merely to hold withdrawal at bay climbs over time, deepening the dependence that the cognitive deficits enforce. The cognitive ledger of smoking is therefore close to a trap: the drug repairs a deficit it created, and the repair is read as a benefit, which strengthens the behavior that maintains the deficit.
Worked Example
Consider the delay-discounting gap between a smoker and a never-smoker, modelled with the hyperbolic function Bickel and colleagues fitted (Bickel et al., 1999). The present value V of a reward of amount A delayed by D days is
V = A / (1 + k D)
where k is the discount rate: larger k means steeper discounting. Take a larger-later reward of A = \$100 and give the steeper-discounting smoker k = 0.05 per day and the never-smoker k = 0.01 per day. The discounted value of the \$100 is then:
- At D = 30 days: smoker V = 100 / (1 + 0.05·30) = \$40.00; never-smoker V = 100 / (1 + 0.01·30) = \$76.92 - At D = 90 days: smoker V = 100 / (1 + 4.5) = \$18.18; never-smoker V = 100 / (1 + 0.9) = \$52.63 - At D = 180 days: smoker V = \$10.00; never-smoker V = \$35.71
Now offer each person an immediate \$40 instead of the delayed \$100. The choice flips at the indifference delay, where the immediate amount equals the discounted larger one: 40 = 100 / (1 + kD), i.e. D = (100/40 − 1)/k = 1.5/k.
smoker: D = 1.5 / 0.05 = 30 days · never-smoker: D = 1.5 / 0.01 = 150 days
For any delay beyond 30 days the smoker takes the smaller-sooner \$40; the never-smoker holds out for the \$100 until the delay exceeds 150 days. The same objective trade-off yields impulsive choice in one and patience in the other, from nothing but a fivefold difference in k. This is the measurable core of the clinical intuition that smokers discount the future: the harm of smoking is delayed and so discounted steeply, while every cigarette's relief is immediate and keeps its full value. Demo 2 varies k, A, and the immediate offer and reads off the indifference delay.
Discussion
The three signatures are complementary descriptions of one sensitized, cue-bound reward system. Attentional bias is incentive salience expressed in the attention system; steep delay discounting is the same over-valuation of the immediate expressed in the choice system; craving is its expression in subjective motivation. All three are stronger in deprivation, all three track craving and relapse, and all three are downstream of the dopaminergic sensitization that repeated nicotine produces (Robinson & Berridge, 1993; Koob & Volkow, 2016; Picciotto & Mineur, 2014). Reading smoking this way reframes relapse: it is not a failure of knowledge—smokers know the risks as well as anyone—but a predictable output of cognitive systems that have been retuned to prioritise the cue, the moment, and the want.
The reframing is clinically consequential. If attentional bias maintains craving, then attentional-bias-modification training is a candidate intervention; if steep discounting predicts relapse, then it is both a screening marker and a target, and episodic-future-thinking manipulations that reduce discounting are being tested as aids to cessation. Pharmacotherapy and behavioural support work in part by lowering the withdrawal that drives the attentional and mnemonic deficits, buying the prefrontal control system a chance to reassert goal-directed choice over the sensitized cue response (Benowitz, 2010; Ashare et al., 2014). The open tension is the familiar one for addiction: these are mechanistically real distortions of cognition, yet most smokers who quit do so eventually, often without treatment, which means the sensitized system remains answerable to motivation and circumstance.
Current Directions
Several fronts are active. The first is cognitive training and modification: attempts to retrain the biased attention of smokers, and to shift delay discounting through episodic future thinking, as adjuncts to standard cessation support—promising in principle but with mixed and still-maturing evidence (Field & Cox, 2008). The second is the extension of the cognitive model to electronic cigarettes and new nicotine products, which deliver nicotine on a different time-course and so may condition cues and sensitize wanting differently than combustible tobacco, a question with direct regulatory stakes. The third is the use of cue-reactivity neuroimaging as a biomarker: the degree to which an individual's reward and salience circuits respond to smoking cues is being tested as a predictor of who will relapse and who will respond to which treatment (Jasinska et al., 2014). Underlying all three is a maturing circuit-level account of how nicotine acts on specific receptor populations to produce these learned changes, which is beginning to connect the molecular pharmacology to the cognitive phenotype (Picciotto & Mineur, 2014).
Common Misconceptions
- Smoking is a simple chemical dependence that ends when nicotine clears.
- Nicotine leaves the body within hours, but relapse risk persists for years because the lasting disorder is one of conditioned attention, valuation, and sensitized wanting, not of circulating drug (Benowitz, 2010).
- Smoking genuinely improves concentration.
- Acute nicotine gives small real gains, but in a dependent smoker most of the felt benefit is relief of the attention and working-memory deficits that abstinence itself produces—a repair of a drug-created deficit, not enhancement above baseline (Heishman et al., 2010; Ashare et al., 2014).
- People smoke because they enjoy it.
- In established dependence, wanting outstrips liking: smokers often crave most when enjoying least, because the drug sensitizes the motivational system while the pleasure fades (Robinson & Berridge, 1993).
- Quitting is just a matter of willpower and information.
- Smokers already know the risks; relapse is driven by cue-captured attention, steep discounting of delayed health, and craving provoked by a sensitized system—cognitive distortions that persist regardless of knowledge or resolve (Sayette, 2016).
Glossary
- Attentional bias.
- The tendency for attention to be captured and held preferentially by a class of stimuli; in smokers, cigarette-related cues are detected faster and dwelt on longer than neutral stimuli, and the bias rises with craving.
- Craving.
- An intense, often cue-triggered desire to smoke; in incentive-sensitization theory it is the subjective face of sensitized wanting, which is why it can intensify across abstinence rather than fade.
- Cue reactivity.
- The set of physiological, subjective, and neural responses elicited by stimuli associated with smoking; measured in the laboratory by presenting cues and recording craving and brain activation.
- Delay discounting.
- The decline in the subjective value of a reward as its delivery is postponed; steep discounting, characteristic of smokers, favours smaller-sooner over larger-later outcomes.
- Discount rate (k).
- The parameter of the hyperbolic discounting function that sets how fast value falls with delay; larger k means steeper discounting and more impulsive intertemporal choice.
- Hyperbolic discounting.
- A model in which present value equals A/(1 + kD), so value drops sharply over short delays and then flattens; it captures the dominance of immediate rewards better than an exponential model.
- Incentive salience.
- The motivational property—wanting—that a reward and its cues acquire, making them attractive and capable of commanding attention and action; sensitized by nicotine independently of pleasure.
- Indifference delay.
- The delay at which a person values a larger-later reward exactly as much as a given smaller-sooner one; beyond it, choice flips to the immediate option, and it comes sooner for steep discounters.
- Nicotine.
- The principal addictive compound in tobacco, an agonist at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors that triggers mesolimbic dopamine release; its rapid pulmonary delivery is what makes smoking so reinforcing.
- Reinforcement.
- The strengthening of a behavior by its consequences; smoking is positively reinforced by nicotine's reward early on and increasingly negatively reinforced by relief of withdrawal as dependence forms.
- Sensitization.
- The increase in a response with repeated exposure; the mesolimbic wanting system is sensitized by nicotine, the opposite of the tolerance shown by the pleasure (liking) system.
- Tolerance.
- The need for more of a drug to achieve the same effect as the response to a fixed dose declines with repeated use; a pharmacological feature of nicotine dependence.
- Wanting versus liking.
- The dissociation at the heart of incentive-sensitization: wanting is the motivation to obtain a reward, liking the pleasure it delivers; smoking amplifies wanting while liking fades.
- Withdrawal.
- The aversive physical and cognitive state—including degraded attention, working memory, and mood—that follows cessation in a dependent smoker; its relief is a powerful reinforcer of continued smoking.
Key Researchers
Neal L. Benowitz
(Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco). The foremost authority on the clinical pharmacology of nicotine, mapping how its absorption, metabolism, and delivery shape the addictiveness of smoking and the design of cessation therapies. Wikipedia
Kent C. Berridge
(Department of Psychology, University of Michigan). With Robinson, formulated the incentive-sensitization theory and the dissociation of wanting from liking, the account that explains why smoking cues command attention and craving independently of pleasure. ORCID · Wikipedia
Warren K. Bickel
(Fralin Biomedical Research Institute, Virginia Tech). A founder of the behavioral-economic study of addiction, who established steep delay discounting as a signature of smoking and other substance-use disorders. ORCID · Google Scholar
Caryn Lerman
(USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California). A leader in the cognitive neuroscience and pharmacogenetics of nicotine dependence, linking withdrawal-related cognitive deficits to relapse and to individualised treatment. ORCID · Wikipedia
Marina R. Picciotto
(Department of Psychiatry, Yale University). Established the role of specific nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunits in nicotine reinforcement, connecting the molecular pharmacology of nicotine to the behavior of smoking. ORCID · Wikipedia
Terry E. Robinson
(Department of Psychology, University of Michigan). With Berridge, originated the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction, reshaping how craving and cue-driven relapse in smoking are understood. ORCID · Wikipedia
Nora D. Volkow
(National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health). Through neuroimaging, established the role of dopamine and prefrontal dysfunction in addiction and shaped the modern brain-disease model within which nicotine dependence is understood. ORCID · Wikipedia
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is smoking so hard to quit even when smokers know it is harmful?
Because the difficulty is cognitive, not informational. Over thousands of reinforced puffs, smoking cues come to capture attention automatically, the brain's wanting system is sensitized so cues trigger craving, and the delayed harm of smoking is discounted steeply against the immediate relief each cigarette brings. Knowledge of risk does not undo these learned distortions.
What is attentional bias in smoking?
It is the tendency for smoking-related stimuli (a lighter, a pack, another smoker) to capture and hold a smoker's attention more than neutral stimuli do. It is measured with tasks like the dot-probe and the smoking Stroop, it rises with craving and nicotine deprivation, and larger biases are associated with a higher chance of relapse.
What does it mean that smokers discount the future?
Delay discounting is how fast a reward loses value as it is postponed. Smokers discount delayed rewards more steeply than non-smokers, so a small immediate reward outweighs a larger delayed one more readily for them. Applied to smoking, the immediate relief of a cigarette easily defeats the distant, heavily discounted benefit of better health.
Does nicotine actually improve concentration?
Acute nicotine produces small genuine improvements in attention and response speed in controlled studies. But in a dependent smoker, most of the felt boost is relief of the attention and working-memory deficits caused by withdrawal itself, rather than performance raised above a non-smoker's baseline. The drug largely repairs a deficit it created.
Why do people crave cigarettes long after they have quit?
Because the wanting system is sensitized rather than merely satisfied. Cues paired with past smoking retain, and can even increase, their power to elicit craving over time, so a smell, a place, or a stressful moment can provoke intense craving months or years into abstinence, long after any physical withdrawal has resolved.
Is the pleasure of smoking what keeps smokers hooked?
Largely no. In established dependence, wanting and liking come apart: smokers often crave most when enjoying least. The sensitized motivational pull of nicotine and its cues, together with the relief of withdrawal, sustain the behavior more than the pleasure of any individual cigarette does.
How is smoking related to addiction in general?
Smoking is a prototypical substance addiction. MeSH files it under behavior, but functionally it shows the full addiction signature (escalation, withdrawal, compulsive cue-driven use, and relapse) driven by the same sensitized reward circuitry and weakened prefrontal control described for addictive behavior broadly.
Does vaping involve the same cognitive processes as smoking?
In large part, yes. Electronic cigarettes deliver nicotine and pair it with cues and a hand-to-mouth ritual, so the same conditioning, attentional bias, and craving can form. The time-course of delivery differs from combustible tobacco, and whether this changes how strongly cues are conditioned is an open research question.
References
Ashare, R. L., Falcone, M., & Lerman, C. (2014). Cognitive function during nicotine withdrawal: Implications for nicotine dependence treatment. Neuropharmacology, 76(Pt B), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.04.034
Benowitz, N. L. (2009). Pharmacology of nicotine: Addiction, smoking-induced disease, and therapeutics. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 49, 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.48.113006.094742
Benowitz, N. L. (2010). Nicotine addiction. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(24), 2295–2303. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0809890
Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999). Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: Delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 146(4), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00005490
Field, M., & Cox, W. M. (2008). Attentional bias in addictive behaviors: A review of its development, causes, and consequences. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 97(1–2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.03.030
GBD 2019 Tobacco Collaborators. (2021). Spatial, temporal, and demographic patterns in prevalence of smoking tobacco use and attributable disease burden in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet, 397(10292), 2337–2360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01169-7
Heishman, S. J., Kleykamp, B. A., & Singleton, E. G. (2010). Meta-analysis of the acute effects of nicotine and smoking on human performance. Psychopharmacology, 210(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-010-1848-1
Hughes, J. R. (2007). Effects of abstinence from tobacco: Valid symptoms and time course. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 9(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14622200701188919
Jasinska, A. J., Stein, E. A., Kaiser, J., Naumer, M. J., & Yalachkov, Y. (2014). Factors modulating neural reactivity to drug cues in addiction: A survey of human neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 38, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.10.013
Koob, G. F., & Volkow, N. D. (2016). Neurobiology of addiction: A neurocircuitry analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(8), 760–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00104-8
Picciotto, M. R., & Mineur, Y. S. (2014). Molecules and circuits involved in nicotine addiction: The many faces of smoking. Neuropharmacology, 76(Pt B), 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.04.028
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (1993). The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Research Reviews, 18(3), 247–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-P
Sayette, M. A. (2016). The role of craving in substance use disorders: Theoretical and methodological issues. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 407–433. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093351
West, R. (2017). Tobacco smoking: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychology & Health, 32(8), 1018–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2017.1325890