Cited by 28Smoking Behavior and CessationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Role of sensitivity to anxiety symptoms in responsiveness to mindfulness versus suppression strategies for coping with smoking cravings

Rogojanski, Jenny, Vettese, Lisa C., Antony, Martin M.·2011·Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Mindfulness strategies for managing cravings involve present-moment, nonjudgmental awareness of cravings without acting on them, while suppression involves pushing cravings out of awareness. Few studies have investigated individual differences in responding to these strategies. The current study examined whether individual differences in anxiety sensitivity moderate responsiveness to mindfulness versus suppression for coping with smoking cravings. Participants (N=61) utilized a mindfulness or suppression strategy to manage cravings during cue exposure to cigarettes and were evaluated for self-efficacy 7 days later. Greater anxiety sensitivity after cue exposure was associated with increased self-efficacy in the suppression condition. This suggests that anxiety-sensitive individuals who utilize suppression may cope better with cravings, at least in the early days after learning these strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jclp.20774

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Low distress tolerance, measured by anxiety sensitivity, moderates the benefits of mindfulness interventions and appears to reduce their success in coping with negative affect and substance cravings.

    “Specifically, low DT (assessed by anxiety sensitivity) has been found to moderate the benefits of mindfulness interventions, appearing to impair the success of mindfulness strategies for coping with negative affect (anxiety) and substance cravings (Arch & Ayers, 2013; Rogojanski, Vettese, & Antony, 2011; see also Raines et al., 2018; Zvolensky et al., 2015).”
  • When MBIs were compared to a distraction strategy or passive control or suppression condition, there were no overall differences between groups.

    “When MBIs were compared to a distraction strategy or passive control or suppression condition (54, 65), there were no overall differences between groups.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rogojanski, J., Vettese, L. C., & Antony, M. M.
Affiliations
Toronto Metropolitan University (CA)
Corresponding author
Antony, Martin M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-02-08
Volume
67
Issue
4
Pages
439-445
ISSN
  • 0021-9762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4679
OpenAlex
W1998488724
Cited by
28
References
31
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
anxiety sensitivity, mindfulness, suppression, cigarette craving, cue exposure, self-efficacy, individual differences, smoking cessation
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Awareness, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Regression Analysis, Smoking, Behavior, Addictive, Treatment Outcome, Self Efficacy, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review