Cited by 62Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Thought suppression, impaired regulation of urges, and Addiction-Stroop predict affect-modulated cue-reactivity among alcohol dependent adults

Open access
Garland, Eric L., Carter, Kristin, Ropes, Katie, Howard, Matthew O.·2012·Biological Psychology

Abstract

Abstinent alcohol dependent individuals commonly employ thought suppression to cope with stress and intrusive cognitions about alcohol. This strategy may inadvertently bias attention towards alcohol-related stimuli while depleting neurocognitive resources needed to regulate urges, manifested as decreased heart rate variability (HRV) responsivity to alcohol cues. The present study tested the hypothesis that trait and state thought suppression, impaired regulation of urges, and alcohol attentional bias as measured by the Addiction-Stroop would have significant effects on the HRV responsivity of 58 adults in residential treatment for alcohol dependence (mean age=39.6 ± 9.4, 81% female) who participated in an affect-modulated cue-reactivity protocol. Regression analyses controlling for age, level of pre-treatment alcohol consumption, and baseline HRV indicated that higher levels of trait thought suppression, impaired regulation of alcohol urges, and attentional fixation on alcohol cues were associated with lower HRV responsivity during stress-primed alcohol cue-exposure. Moreover, there was a significant state × trait suppression interaction on HRV cue-responsivity, such that alcohol dependent persons reporting high levels of state and trait suppression exhibited less HRV during cue-exposure than persons reporting low levels of state and trait suppression. Results suggest that chronic thought suppression taxes regulatory resources reflected in reduced HRV responsivity, an effect that is particularly evident when high trait suppressors engage in intensive suppression of drinking-related thoughts under conditions of stress. Treatment approaches that offer effective alternatives to the maladaptive strategy of suppressing alcohol urges may be crucial for relapse prevention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.09.010

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Given that suppression of addictive urges exhausts autonomic resources for self-control and paradoxically amplifies craving, MBIs may reduce addictive behavior by providing an effective alternative to thought suppression.

    “given that suppression of addictive urges exhausts autonomic resources for self-control [58] and paradoxically amplifies craving [59], MBIs may reduce addictive behavior by providing an effective alternative to thought suppression.”
  • Cue reactivity paradigms have been useful for predicting substance use behaviors, including self-initiated abstinence, latency to use, and relapse, in various substance-dependent populations.

    “Further, these paradigms have demonstrated utility in predicting substance use behaviors – including self-initiated abstinence, latency to use, and relapse – among a variety of substance dependent populations (Conklin, Parzynski, Salkeld, Perkins, & Fonte, 2012; Fatseas et al., 2011; Garland, Carter, Ropes, & Howard, 2012; Shiffman et al., 2013).”

    From Laboratory-induced cue reactivity among individuals with prescription opioid dependence (2014) · cites this paper as Garland, Carter, Ropes, & Howard, 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garland, E. L., Carter, K., Ropes, K., & Howard, M. O.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Garland, Eric L.
Venue
Biological Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-01
Volume
89
Issue
1
Pages
87-93
ISSN
0301-0511 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2042505321
Cited by
62
References
64
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (T32AT003378)
  • Francisco J. Varela Research Grant
  • Armfield-Reeves Innovation Grant
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
thought suppression, alcoholism, alcohol cue reactivity, heart rate variability, attentional bias, stress, relapse prevention
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Alcoholism, Attention, Cognition Disorders, Cues, Electrocardiography, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Pain Measurement, Regression Analysis, Repression, Psychology, Statistics as Topic, Bias

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