24, p = .08) at trend-level significance. Correlations with all other measures Rapamycin mTOR were nonsignificant. Conclusions Summary of Findings This study demonstrated robust effects of abstinence on withdrawal symptoms, smoking urge, and negative affect in a sample of adolescent smokers. However, abstinence did not significantly influence positive affect, or reactive irritability. Although abstinence did not increase urge reactivity to smoking cues, it did increase PPC and affect, that is, urge and affect ratings in the presence of smoking cues, unadjusted for responses to neutral cues. These findings extend prior research by testing a broad array of outcome measures within one study, including indices of reactive irritability and cue reactivity that have not been examined in prior controlled studies of adolescent tobacco abstinence.

This multimeasure approach is useful in characterizing the phenomenology of adolescent smoking abstinence by showing that responses of adolescent smokers to abstinence overlap those of adult smokers in some (i.e., increases in negative affect, withdrawal symptoms, and overall smoking urges; Colby et al., 2010; Corrigall et al., 2001; Zack et al., 2001) but not other aspects (i.e., no increase in reactive irritability or reduction in positive affect; al��Absi et al., 2005, 2004; Leventhal et al., 2010). Contrary to our hypotheses, we did not find that acute abstinence led to increases in urge or affective reactivity to smoking cues.

Inspection of mean values of QSU scores after neutral cue exposure indicated that ABST participants scored close to the upper limit of the range of possible values on this measure in S2, leaving limited range to demonstrate increases in urge following the smoking cue exposure, resulting in a ceiling effect for cue-induced change scores. This likely accounted for ABST participants showing a reduction in urge reactivity from S1 to S2. Similar findings have frequently been reported in adult smokers (Drobes & Tiffany, 1997; Sayette & Hufford, 1994; Sayette et al., 2001; Tidey, Rohsenow, Kaplan, Swift, & Adolfo, 2008), leading researchers to additionally examine effects on PPC, focusing on urge ratings during exposure to smoking cues without adjusting for urges during neutral cues (e.g., Donny, Griffin, Shiffman, & Sayette, 2008; Sayette et al., 2000). Studies support the clinical relevance of PPC and show that peak provoked urge ratings are reduced by nicotine patch (Morissette, Palfai, Gulliver, Spiegel, & Barlow, 2005; Tiffany, Cox, & Elash, 2000; Waters et al., 2004) and nicotine Entinostat gum (Niaura et al., 2005; Shiffman et al.