Cited by 35Smoking Behavior and CessationBehavioral Health and InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Do resisted temptations during smoking cessation deplete or augment self-control resources?

Open access
O'Connell, Kathleen A., Schwartz, Joseph E., Shiffman, Saul·2008·Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

A resource depletion model of self-control posits that for some period following performance of a task requiring self-control, self-control will be reduced and thus less available for use in a subsequent task. Using 2 substantial data sets collected in real time from individuals who were trying to quit smoking (1,660 and 9,516 temptation episodes collected from 61 and 248 individuals, respectively), we evaluated this model by testing the hypotheses that the number and length of resisted temptations and the intensity of the most recently reported urge during the prior 4 hr predict decreased self-control and increased likelihood of lapsing. Survival and multilevel regression modeling showed that contrary to the hypothesis, the number of recently resisted temptations predicted a lower risk of lapsing in both samples. Duration of resisted temptations had no significant effect in either sample. Intensity of most recently reported urge predicted lapsing in 1 data set but not in the other. Overall, there was little support for the resource depletion model. The protective effect of successfully resisting temptations was an unexpected but provocative finding.

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 · 10.1037/0893-164x.22.4.486

Cites

53 of 53 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?

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
O'Connell, K. A., Schwartz, J. E., & Shiffman, S.
Affiliations
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
Published
2008-12
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
486-495
ISSN
  • 0893-164X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1501
OpenAlex
W2076428300
Cited by
35
References
53
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (NR03145)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA06084; DA10605)
  • Sponsor Name Not Included (NR03145)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
self-control, smoking cessation, temptation, relapse, nicotine dependence, ego depletion
MeSH terms
Administration, Cutaneous, Adult, Chewing Gum, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Patient Compliance, Prospective Studies, Survival Analysis, Smoking Cessation, Computers, Handheld, Resilience, Psychological, Secondary Prevention

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