g., access to alternative reinforcers) learn more and pharmacological (e.g., NRT) treatments on the reinforcing efficacy of cigarette smoke and for investigating the nicotine and non-nicotine factors that contribute to smoking (Bickel, Madden, & DeGrandpre, 1997; Johnson & Bickel, 2003; Johnson, Bickel, & Kirshenbaum, 2004; Shahan, Bickel, Madden, & Badger, 1999; Shahan, Odum, & Bickel, 2000). Despite its frequent use in human smoking studies as well as its utility in animal studies examining the reinforcing efficacy of other drugs of abuse, very few animal studies have examined the elasticity of demand for nicotine (Diergaarde, van Mourik, Pattij, Schoffelmeer, & De Vries, 2011). Increasing the study of behavioral economic outcomes in animal nicotine self-administration research is important for several reasons.

First, behavioral economic analysis is specifically intended for modeling drug abuse policies in animals (Hursh, 1991). Second, it would provide a conceptual framework to facilitate translation of findings between preclinical studies, clinical trials, and public policy concerned with nicotine reduction. Third, it provides unique information that can complement the analysis of nicotine reinforcement thresholds by elucidating the behavioral mechanisms mediating changes in such thresholds. For instance, a decrease in threshold could reflect an increase in potency, an increase in the reinforcing efficacy of nicotine, or both. Normalized demand curve analysis can measure changes in reinforcing efficacy per se independent of dose and potency, allowing analysis of the relative contribution of these two factors and facilitating comparison of demand across species (Hursh et al.

, 2005). Finally, demand curve analysis provides a simple and precise quantitative approach to measuring changes in reinforcing efficacy across a wide range of conditions (Hursh et al., 2005). Models of Relapse Reduced nicotine content cigarettes could also reduce the health burden of tobacco by facilitating cessation amongst those who initially continue to smoke (cf. Hatsukami et al., 2010). That is, some individuals may not stop smoking as a direct result of nicotine reduction, possibly because the nicotine content in cigarettes remains above their individual threshold for reinforcement. However, they may be more likely to achieve abstinence when they make an active quit attempt.

Animal models of reacquisition and reinstatement, as well as other models pertinent to cessation (e.g., withdrawal, punished behavior), may be useful for assessing this effect (Panlilio, Thorndike, AV-951 & Schindler, 2005; Shaham, Shalev, Lu, De Wit, & Stewart, 2003). For example, the ability of cues to reinstate behavior might decline as a result of a history of nicotine reduction. Whether this effect occurs, differs across individuals, or is affected by the pattern of reduction is unknown.