7) to 28.0 (SD = 28.0) for Bout 1, from 44.2 (SD = 29.4) to 20.5 (SD = 25.2) for Bout 2, from 30.2 (SD = 28.8) to 15.6 (SD = 22.5) for Bout 3, and from 26.4 (SD = 26.3) to 14.8 (SD = 22.2) for Bout 4 (from before smoking at Bout 1; p < .05, Tukey's HSD). That is, the mean difference between pre- and postsmoking inhibitor values was greater for Bout 1 (M = 48.7, SD = 25.7; p < .05, Tukey's HSD) than for Bout 4 (M = 11.6, SD = 14.1). A similar pattern of results was observed for all other VAS items with a significant bout �� time interaction. We found a significant main effect of cigarette brand for the items ��urges to smoke�� and ��craving a cigarette/nicotine�� (F's > 5.2, p’s < .05). Scores for both of these items were greater for ultra-light (e.g., craving mean = 34.3, SD = 32.4) than for own-brand cigarettes (e.

g., craving mean = 29.8, SD = 32.0; p < .05, Tukey's HSD). Results also showed that scores for ��difficulty concentrating�� decreased with subsequent bouts��main effect of bout, F(3, 84) = 9.0, p < .01��and that scores for ��drowsiness�� decreased from pre- to postsmoking bout��main effect of time, F(1, 28) = 9.0, p < .01. Two-way brand �� bout interactions were observed for the VAS items ��drowsiness�� and ��hunger�� (F's > 4.0, p’s < .05). For both measures, scores for own brand were generally greater than for ultra-lights for Bouts 1 and 2 but less than for ultra-lights for Bouts 3 and 4 (ns, Tukey's HSD). A significant three-way brand �� bout �� time interaction was observed for the VAS item ��irritability/frustration/anger,�� F(3, 87) = 5.2, P < .01.

Mean differences from pre- to postsmoking were 16.0 (SD = 20.4) versus 0.3 (SD = 5.3) for own-brand bouts 1 and 4, and 7.4 (SD = 15.9) versus 2.4 (SD = 5.1) for ultra-light bouts 1 and 4 (ns, Tukey’s HSD). Finally, we found a significant four-way interaction for the VAS item ��desire for sweets,�� F(6, 174) = 3.4, p < .05, although results showed no clear pattern, and differences between means were not reliable (ns, Tukey's HSD). Tiffany�CDrobes QSU. A significant four-way interaction was observed for Factor 1, F(6, 174) = 3.0, p < .05. The mean difference (collapsed across device and brand) from pre- to postsmoking decreased as bout number increased (p < .05, Tukey's HSD for Bouts 1 and 2). Greater scores were observed for ultra-light relative to own brand for each method: 47.8 (SD = 20.

4) versus 42.4 (SD = 17.6) for desktop, 44.8 (SD = 18.3) versus 42.3 (SD = 15.1) for portable, and 48.2 (SD = 18.3) versus 40.1 (SD = 16.9) for video (ns, Tukey’s HSD). A significant bout �� time interaction, F(3, 87) = 36.3, p < .001, and a Batimastat main effect of cigarette brand, F(1, 28) = 4.6, p < .05, was observed for Factor 2. Scores decreased from pre- to postsmoking within each bout and also across pre- and postsmoking timepoints: from a mean difference of 17.0 (SD = 13.9) for Bout 1 to 5.9 (SD = 10.0) for Bout 4 (p < .05, Tukey’s HSD). Moreover, ratings were greater for ultra-light (M = 22.8, SD = 17.