Water Pipe Smoking

Abstract

Water pipe smoking is a type of pipe smoking: tobacco heated by charcoal and drawn through a water bowl before it is inhaled, typically over a long, shared session. The water cools the smoke and makes it feel mild, but it does not filter out most of its toxicants, and the smoker inhales—so unlike the classic pipe held in the mouth, the water pipe recovers the fast pulmonary route that carries nicotine to the brain in seconds. Under the rate hypothesis that steep arrival is strongly reinforcing, and a session's many puffs stack those arrivals into a large cumulative dose. The long, social ritual adds a rich complex of conditioned cues. Three interactive demonstrations trace session dose accumulation, cue-elicited craving, and the delay discounting behind a quit attempt.

Keywords: water pipe, nicotine, session dose, addiction, cue reactivity

The water pipe—hookah, shisha, narghile, depending on where it is smoked—looks like the gentlest way to use tobacco. The smoke is cooled and flavoured, the apparatus is elaborate and ornamental, and a session is a relaxed social hour rather than a furtive few minutes. That appearance is a large part of its spread, and most of it is wrong in the ways that matter cognitively. The water cools the smoke without removing much of its toxic load, the charcoal that heats the tobacco adds its own carbon monoxide, and because the cooled smoke is comfortable to inhale, the user draws it deep into the lungs (El-Zaatari et al., 2015; Shihadeh et al., 2015).

That last fact is the hinge of the whole account. The classic pipe is defined, cognitively, by what its smoker does not do: inhale. The water pipe undoes exactly that restraint. Its users inhale, so they recover the fast pulmonary delivery that the held-in-the-mouth pipe avoids—and they do so across a session of dozens to hundreds of puffs, not the ten or so of a cigarette (Neergaard et al., 2007; Cobb et al., 2010). This article treats the water pipe as the instructive exception to its parent category: a pipe by apparatus that behaves, in delivery and in risk, far more like a long cigarette, and whose pull is built as much by its unhurried social ritual as by the drug (Maziak, 2015).

What Water Pipe Smoking Is

A water pipe is a device in which tobacco—usually a moist, sweetened, flavoured preparation—is heated indirectly by a piece of burning charcoal resting above it. The smoke produced is pulled down through a body of water in a bowl, where it cools and loses some of its harshness, and then up through a hose to the smoker. In the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary, Water Pipe Smoking (D000073867) is filed directly beneath Pipe Smoking (D000073868), its parent category, which is in turn a kind of smoking. MeSH is an indexing classification for retrieving the biomedical literature, not a theory of behavior, and the grouping by apparatus conceals the variable that actually governs addiction: the route and rate of delivery.

On that decisive variable the water pipe parts company with its parent. The classic pipe burns an alkaline smoke whose nicotine is absorbed slowly across the lining of the mouth, and its smoker characteristically does not inhale, so the drug arrives as a slow buccal swell. The water pipe's smoker inhales the cooled smoke into the lungs, whose vast surface delivers nicotine to the brain within seconds—the same fast pulmonary route a cigarette uses (Neergaard et al., 2007; Benowitz et al., 2009). The cooling matters here in a perverse way: it is precisely because the smoke is mild and comfortable that the user is willing to inhale it deeply and repeatedly, which is what restores the rapid delivery (Shihadeh et al., 2015).

Two further features set the water pipe apart. First, duration: a session commonly runs twenty minutes to over an hour and involves dozens to several hundred puffs, so the smoke volume inhaled dwarfs that of a single cigarette (Cobb et al., 2010). Second, company: the water pipe is typically smoked socially, passed in a café or a home, which embeds the drug in an unusually rich and pleasant context (Maziak, 2015). Nicotine itself is the same molecule throughout—an agonist at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors that triggers dopamine release in the mesolimbic reward pathway (Wittenberg et al., 2020). What the water pipe changes is the shape and the setting of its arrival.

Water Pipe Smoking and Cognition

The water pipe recruits the same cognitive systems as any tobacco habit—reward learning, attention, and intertemporal choice—but it arranges them in an unusual combination. From its parent category it inherits the elaborate ritual; from the cigarette it borrows the fast, inhaled delivery it was supposed to have left behind. The result is a product whose pharmacological pull is sharp rather than gentle, wrapped in a social ritual whose conditioning power is unusually strong (Rose, 2006; Maziak, 2015).

Table 1 sets the three tobacco forms side by side on the variables that decide their cognitive grip. The pattern it shows is the argument of this article in miniature: the water pipe borrows the cigarette's fast route while keeping the pipe's ritual, then multiplies both across a long session.

The fast route, recovered

The central cognitive-pharmacological idea the water pipe inherits is the rate hypothesis: the reinforcing power of a dose of nicotine depends on how fast it reaches the brain, not merely on how much arrives. A sharp spike produces a tight pairing between the act and the dopaminergic reward signal; a slow rise smears that signal across minutes and weakens the association (Russell, 1990; Benowitz, 2009). The classic pipe sits at the slow, weakly reinforcing end of that scale because its alkaline smoke is absorbed buccally and not inhaled. The water pipe moves back toward the fast, strongly reinforcing end: its cooled smoke is inhaled, so each puff is a rapid pulmonary bolus with a steep leading edge, much like a cigarette's (Neergaard et al., 2007; Benowitz, 2010).

The session then adds something the cigarette does not. A cigarette is one spike; a water pipe session is many, repeated over an hour, so the steep arrivals stack into a sustained high level and a large cumulative dose (Cobb et al., 2010). The mild taste disguises the size of that dose, which is one reason users underestimate their exposure. Demo 1 makes the session adjustable—puff rate, session length, and clearance—and reads off both the per-puff steepness and the cumulative load.

The session as a cue complex

If the pharmacology is sharp, the conditioning is sharper still, because the water pipe is almost never smoked alone or quickly. The non-nicotine factors of smoking—the sensory, motor, and contextual cues that accompany every dose—acquire motivational force of their own through conditioning, and can sustain the behavior substantially by themselves (Rose, 2006). The water pipe supplies these in abundance: the flavoured aroma, the bubbling sound, the shared hose, the café or living-room setting, the long relaxed company. Each is a cue, and each is paired, session after session, with the inhaled nicotine.

Under the incentive-sensitization theory, cues paired repeatedly with a drug acquire incentive salience—they come to capture attention and elicit craving, a cue-driven wanting that is dissociable from, and can grow and persist independently of, the liking or pleasure the drug delivers (Berridge & Robinson, 2016; Dani & Balfour, 2011). Because the water pipe's cues are social and pleasant as well as numerous, they condition efficiently and are hard to avoid, which helps explain why the habit forms readily in people who would never take up cigarettes (Maziak, 2015). Demo 2 grows cue-elicited craving across repeated social sessions and lets the richness of the setting be varied.

Intertemporal choice and quitting

When a water pipe smoker considers quitting, the decision is an exercise in intertemporal choice: a near-certain immediate loss—the session, the company, the relief—set against a delayed, probabilistic gain in health. Like other smokers, water pipe users tend to discount delayed rewards steeply, so the distant benefit is devalued against the immediate cost of forgoing the next session. Structured models of behavior change describe quitting as movement through stages—precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance—each with its own cognitive balance of perceived costs and benefits (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983).

Quitting the water pipe carries a specific obstacle: many users do not believe they are addicted at all, because the mildness and the social framing disguise the dependence (Maziak, 2015). Cessation support acts on both sides of the ledger. Pharmacotherapies—nicotine replacement, bupropion, varenicline—raise the odds of success by blunting withdrawal and supplying a slow, non-spiking nicotine source far less reinforcing than the smoked drug (Cahill et al., 2013). Because craving and lapse are driven by momentary cues and states rather than stable traits, they are best captured as they happen, through ecological momentary assessment in the smoker's own environment (Shiffman et al., 2008). Newer nicotine products deliver nicotine on yet other time-courses and raise their own questions—electronic cigarettes outperformed nicotine-replacement therapy for cessation in a randomised trial (Hajek et al., 2019). Demo 3 makes the discounting that underlies the quit decision adjustable.

Nicotine, cognition, and withdrawal

The relaxed calm of a water pipe session is largely a social and pharmacological artefact, not a cognitive enhancement. Acute nicotine does produce small, genuine improvements in sustained attention and response speed in meta-analysis (Heishman et al., 2010). But in a dependent user much of the felt benefit is the relief of withdrawal rather than enhancement above a non-user's baseline: abstinence degrades attention and working memory, and the next session merely restores them. The water pipe's long, high-dose sessions punctuated by hours or days of abstinence can make that withdrawal cycle pronounced, even as the user attributes the returning ease entirely to the pleasure of the ritual (Benowitz, 2010). The calm is real as an experience; as a cognitive gain over baseline it is largely the quieting of a deficit the nicotine itself helps maintain.

Worked Example

Two numbers capture why a mild-feeling water pipe delivers so much. The first is the per-puff steepness it shares with the cigarette. Treat the brain as a one-compartment system filling toward a peak C_max with a delivery time constant τ, so a single puff gives C(t) = C_max(1 − e^−t/τ), and the quantity the rate hypothesis says the reward system reads is the initial slope, C_max/τ. Inhaled water pipe smoke takes the fast pulmonary route, τ ≈ 0.5 min, where the classic held-in-the-mouth pipe is slow, τ ≈ 5 min. At a common peak C_max = 20 ng/mL:

- Water pipe (inhaled): 20 / 0.5 = 40 ng/mL per minute - Classic pipe (buccal): 20 / 5 = 4 ng/mL per minute

A tenfold steeper leading edge, from the same eventual peak—the water pipe recovers the cigarette's reinforcing arrival that its parent category avoids (Russell, 1990; Neergaard et al., 2007).

The second number is the cumulative load a session stacks up. Take a session of 50 minutes with a puff every 17 seconds, against a cigarette of about 12 puffs, and a representative inhaled volume of 0.5 L per water pipe puff versus 0.05 L per cigarette puff:

- Water pipe puffs per session: 50 × 60 / 17 ≈ 176 puffs - Inhaled smoke volume, water pipe: 176 × 0.5 L ≈ 88 L per session - Inhaled smoke volume, one cigarette: 12 × 0.05 L = 0.6 L - Ratio: 88 / 0.6 ≈ about 150 times the smoke volume of a single cigarette

The per-puff arrival is as steep as a cigarette's, and a single session inhales on the order of a hundred cigarettes' worth of smoke. The gentleness is a property of the taste, not of the dose (Cobb et al., 2010; Shihadeh et al., 2015). Demo 1 varies the session length and puff rate and reads off both the steepness and the cumulative load.

Discussion

Read cognitively, the water pipe is the exception that proves its parent's rule. Pipe smoking is instructive because its slow, buccal, un-inhaled delivery makes it weakly reinforcing dose-for-dose; the water pipe is instructive because it keeps the pipe's name and ritual while quietly discarding the one feature—not inhaling—that made the pipe gentle. What is left is fast pulmonary delivery, a steep and strongly reinforcing per-puff arrival, stacked across a long session into a large cumulative dose, and wrapped in an unusually rich and pleasant social ritual that conditions craving efficiently (Neergaard et al., 2007; Maziak, 2015).

That framing exposes the central public-health problem the cognitive account makes legible: the water pipe is perceived as safe for reasons that are themselves sensory illusions. The cooling that removes the harshness does not remove the toxicants; the water that the smoke bubbles through is imagined to filter it but does little; the social, unhurried framing reads as leisure rather than drug use (El-Zaatari et al., 2015; Shihadeh et al., 2015). Each perception lowers the guard that a cigarette would raise, and each is contradicted by the delivery data. The lesson generalises to every putatively mild nicotine product: the route and rate of delivery and the conditioned behavior, not the taste or the marketing category, determine the cognitive and physical outcome (West, 2017).

Current Directions

Three fronts are active. The first is measurement of what a real session actually delivers: topography studies record puff number, volume, and duration in naturalistic settings, pinning down the cumulative dose and toxicant exposure that laboratory single-puff work underestimates, and these increasingly feed the regulatory case for treating the water pipe as the high-exposure product it is (Shihadeh et al., 2015; Cobb et al., 2010). The second is the extension of the rate hypothesis across the widening landscape of inhaled nicotine products—electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco, and flavoured waterpipe variants each deliver nicotine on a distinct time-course, with direct regulatory stakes sharpened by trial evidence on cessation (Hajek et al., 2019; Cahill et al., 2013). The third is methodological and behavioral: ecological momentary assessment is maturing into the standard way to capture craving, cue exposure, and lapse as they unfold, which is where the social-cue account of a ritualised, communal habit like water pipe smoking can be tested rather than inferred (Shiffman et al., 2008). Underlying all three is a deepening receptor-level account of how nicotine acts on specific nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subtypes to produce the learned changes that sustain any tobacco habit (Wittenberg et al., 2020).

Common Misconceptions

The water filters out the harmful substances.

The water cools the smoke and removes some of its harshness, but it does not filter out most of the toxicants; a session still delivers tar, heavy metals, and large amounts of carbon monoxide from the heating charcoal (El-Zaatari et al., 2015; Shihadeh et al., 2015).

A water pipe is gentler than cigarettes because the smoke is mild.

Mildness is a property of taste and temperature, not of dose. Because the cooled smoke is comfortable to inhale deeply, a session stacks many fast pulmonary puffs into a cumulative smoke volume on the order of a hundred cigarettes (Cobb et al., 2010; Neergaard et al., 2007).

A water pipe is not really addictive the way cigarettes are.

Because the cooled smoke is inhaled, the water pipe recovers the fast pulmonary delivery that makes cigarettes addictive, and sessions deliver substantial nicotine; users who perceive no dependence often meet its criteria (Maziak, 2015; Benowitz, 2010).

It is only occasional and social, so it cannot form a habit.

The social, pleasant context is not a protection but a potent conditioning environment: its rich, repeated cues acquire incentive salience and elicit craving, which can sustain the behavior in their own right (Rose, 2006; Berridge & Robinson, 2016).

Glossary

Addiction.

A disorder of compulsive drug seeking and use maintained by learned changes in reward, attention, and motivation; in tobacco it is driven by nicotine and the cues paired with it.

Carbon monoxide.

A toxic gas produced by the charcoal that heats the water pipe tobacco; a major component of water pipe exposure that the water does not remove.

Craving.

An intense, often cue-triggered desire to smoke; in incentive-sensitization theory it is the subjective face of sensitized wanting, readily provoked by the social cues of a water pipe session.

Cue reactivity.

The physiological, subjective, and neural responses elicited by stimuli associated with smoking; the water pipe's flavour, sound, hose, and social setting supply an unusually rich and pleasant set of such cues.

Delay discounting.

The decline in the subjective value of a reward as its delivery is postponed; steep discounting devalues the delayed health benefits of quitting against the immediate cost of forgoing the next session.

Delivery kinetics.

The time-course over which a drug reaches the brain after a dose; for nicotine, set chiefly by the route of absorption and captured here by the time constant τ.

Hookah (shisha, narghile).

Common names for the water pipe and for the practice of smoking it; the flavoured tobacco preparation it burns is also called shisha.

Incentive salience.

The motivational property—wanting—that a reward and its cues acquire through conditioning, making them attractive and able to command attention and action independently of pleasure.

Nicotine.

The principal addictive compound in tobacco, an agonist at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors that triggers mesolimbic dopamine release; delivered fast when the water pipe's cooled smoke is inhaled.

Pulmonary absorption.

Uptake of a drug across the large surface of the lungs; fast and efficient, delivering an arterial bolus of nicotine to the brain within seconds, as in inhaled water pipe and cigarette smoking.

Rate hypothesis.

The proposal that the reinforcing power of a drug dose scales with how quickly it reaches the brain, not just with the peak concentration; it explains why the inhaled water pipe is more reinforcing than the slow buccal pipe at the same dose.

Reinforcement.

The strengthening of a behavior by its consequences; smoking is reinforced by nicotine's reward and, as dependence forms, by relief of withdrawal.

Smoke topography.

The measurable pattern of smoking behavior—puff number, volume, duration, and spacing; water pipe topography involves far more and larger puffs than cigarette smoking, driving a large cumulative dose.

Withdrawal.

The aversive physical and cognitive state—degraded attention, working memory, and mood—that follows cessation in a dependent user; its relief powerfully reinforces continued smoking.

Key Researchers

Neal L. Benowitz

(Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco). The foremost authority on the clinical pharmacology of nicotine, whose work on absorption, metabolism, and delivery kinetics underpins the rate-based account of why route determines addictiveness. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Thomas Eissenberg

(Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Virginia Commonwealth University). A leading experimental researcher on water pipe smoking, whose clinical and topography studies quantify the nicotine and toxicant exposure of a real session and anchor the case that the water pipe is a high-exposure product. Faculty · ORCID · Google Scholar

Wasim Maziak

(Department of Epidemiology, Robert Stempel College of Public Health, Florida International University). An epidemiologist who has mapped the global resurgence of water pipe smoking and its risk perceptions, documenting how mildness and social framing disguise dependence. Faculty · ORCID · Google Scholar

Michael A. H. Russell

(1932–2009) (Addiction Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, London). A pioneer of nicotine science who argued that people smoke for nicotine but die from the tar, and whose work on delivery and dependence laid the groundwork for the rate hypothesis. Wikipedia

Alan Shihadeh

(Department of Mechanical Engineering, American University of Beirut). An engineer who built the instrumented study of water pipe emissions, measuring the smoke volume, toxicants, and carbon monoxide a session actually delivers. Faculty · Google Scholar

Robert West

(Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London). A leading figure in the science of tobacco use and cessation, and a longtime editor of the field, whose syntheses frame the health impact, prevalence, and treatment of smoking. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a water pipe safer than cigarettes?

No. It feels milder because the smoke is cooled and flavoured, but the water does not filter out most of the toxicants, and because the cooled smoke is inhaled deeply across a long session, a single sitting delivers smoke volume on the order of a hundred cigarettes, along with large amounts of carbon monoxide from the heating charcoal. The mildness is a matter of taste, not of exposure.

Does the water filter out the harmful substances?

Only to a small degree. The water cools the smoke and removes some harshness, but the bulk of the tar, heavy metals, and carbon monoxide passes straight through to the lungs. The belief that the water acts as a filter is one of the main reasons the water pipe is misperceived as safe.

Is water pipe smoking addictive?

Yes. Because the cooled smoke is inhaled, it recovers the fast pulmonary delivery that makes cigarettes addictive, and sessions deliver substantial nicotine to the brain. Many users do not believe they are dependent, precisely because the mildness and the social setting disguise it, but the pharmacology and the dependence are real.

Why does inhaling matter so much?

Inhaling sends the smoke to the lungs, whose vast surface delivers nicotine to the brain within seconds: the fast, highly reinforcing pulmonary route. The classic pipe is comparatively gentle because its smoker holds the smoke in the mouth and does not inhale. The water pipe discards that restraint, which is why it behaves more like a long cigarette than like its parent category.

What is the rate hypothesis, and how does it apply here?

It is the proposal that the reinforcing power of a drug depends on how fast it reaches the brain, not just on how much arrives. A sharp spike pairs tightly with the brain's reward signal; a slow rise does not. The water pipe's inhaled puffs arrive steeply, like a cigarette's, so they are strongly reinforcing, and a session stacks many of them together.

If it is only social and occasional, can it really become a habit?

Yes, and the social framing is part of why. The pleasant, repeated cues of a session (the flavour, the sound, the shared hose, the company) acquire motivational pull through conditioning and can elicit craving on their own. A context that feels like relaxed leisure is an efficient place to learn a drug habit.

How is quitting a water pipe different from quitting cigarettes?

The pharmacology is similar once inhalation is taken into account, so withdrawal and the usual pharmacotherapies apply. The distinctive obstacles are perceptual and social: users may not accept that they are addicted, and the habit is bound up with valued social occasions, so the cues are both strong and hard to avoid.

Does a relaxing hookah session actually aid thinking or unwinding?

The relaxation is largely social and pharmacological rather than a genuine cognitive gain. Acute nicotine gives small real improvements in attention, but in a dependent user most of the felt benefit is relief of the deficits that abstinence itself produces. The calm is a real experience but is mostly the quieting of a drug-created deficit, helped along by the company.

References

Benowitz, N. L., Hukkanen, J., & Jacob, P. (2009). Nicotine chemistry, metabolism, kinetics and biomarkers. In J. E. Henningfield, E. D. London, & S. Pogun (Eds.), Nicotine psychopharmacology (Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, Vol. 192, pp. 29–60). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69248-5_2

Benowitz, N. L. (2010). Nicotine addiction. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(24), 2295–2303. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0809890

Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2016). Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. American Psychologist, 71(8), 670–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000059

Cahill, K., Stevens, S., Perera, R., & Lancaster, T. (2013). Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: An overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013(5), CD009329. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009329.pub2

Cobb, C., Ward, K. D., Maziak, W., Shihadeh, A. L., & Eissenberg, T. (2010). Waterpipe tobacco smoking: An emerging health crisis in the United States. American Journal of Health Behavior, 34(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.34.3.3

Dani, J. A., & Balfour, D. J. K. (2011). Historical and current perspective on tobacco use and nicotine addiction. Trends in Neurosciences, 34(7), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2011.05.001

El-Zaatari, Z. M., Chami, H. A., & Zaatari, G. S. (2015). Health effects associated with waterpipe smoking. Tobacco Control, 24(Suppl 1), i31–i43. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051908

Hajek, P., Phillips-Waller, A., Przulj, D., Pesola, F., Myers Smith, K., Bisal, N., Li, J., Parrott, S., Sasieni, P., Dawkins, L., Ross, L., Goniewicz, M., Wu, Q., & McRobbie, H. J. (2019). A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(7), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

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

Maziak, W., Taleb, Z. B., Bahelah, R., Islam, F., Jaber, R., Auf, R., & Salloum, R. G. (2015). The global epidemiology of waterpipe smoking. Tobacco Control, 24(Suppl 1), i3–i12. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051903

Neergaard, J., Singh, P., Job, J., & Montgomery, S. (2007). Waterpipe smoking and nicotine exposure: A review of the current evidence. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 9(10), 987–994. https://doi.org/10.1080/14622200701591591

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390

Rose, J. E. (2006). Nicotine and nonnicotine factors in cigarette addiction. Psychopharmacology, 184(3–4), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-005-0250-x

Russell, M. A. H. (1990). The nicotine addiction trap: A 40-year sentence for four cigarettes. British Journal of Addiction, 85(2), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1990.tb03085.x

Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415

Shihadeh, A., Schubert, J., Klaiany, J., El Sabban, M., Luch, A., & Saliba, N. A. (2015). Toxicant content, physical properties and biological activity of waterpipe tobacco smoke and its tobacco-free alternatives. Tobacco Control, 24(Suppl 1), i22–i30. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051907

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

Wittenberg, R. E., Wolfman, S. L., De Biasi, M., & Dani, J. A. (2020). Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and nicotine addiction: A brief introduction. Neuropharmacology, 177, 108256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2020.108256