Cited by 35Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsBehavioral Health and Interventions

Breaking the cycle of desire: Mindfulness and executive control weaken the relation between an implicit measure of alcohol valence and preoccupation with alcohol-related thoughts.

Open access
Ostafin, Brian D., Kassman, Kyle T., Wessel, Ineke·2013·Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

Stimuli with strong affective valence capture attention. This can impede the self-regulation of impulses. That is, preoccupation with a tempting stimulus such as alcohol may lead to a continued activation of automatic affective responses to that stimulus, increasing the likelihood of approach and consumption. Self-regulation may, thus, benefit from variables that weaken the relation between salient stimuli and cognitive preoccupation with those stimuli. Recent research shows that mindfulness and executive control reduce the link between automatic affective responses to alcohol and alcohol consumption. In this study, the authors examined whether mindfulness and executive control may similarly decouple the relation between automatic affective responses and difficulty in disengaging attention from alcohol-related thoughts. Participants completed measures of trait mindfulness, executive control (a working memory task), automatic alcohol-valence associations, and preoccupation with alcohol-related thoughts. Results showed that (a) both trait mindfulness and executive control are inversely related with alcohol preoccupation, and (b) both mindfulness and executive control weaken a positive relation between automatic alcohol-valence associations and alcohol preoccupation.

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/a0032621

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • In Ostafin et al. (2013), greater alcohol-positive implicit associations were related to greater preoccupation with alcohol-related thoughts only among those low in total mindfulness or more judgmental.

    “Greater alcohol-positive implicit associations were related to greater preoccupation with alcohol-related thoughts only among those who were low in total mindfulness or more judgmental.”

    From Decoupling as a Mechanism of Change in Mindfulness and Acceptance: A Literature Review (2015) · cites this paper as Ostafin et al., 2013

    The paper title (unpaginated) says that mindfulness weakens the relation between implicit alcohol valence and preoccupation with alcohol-related thoughts. The available passages do not establish that a positive association occurred only among people low in total mindfulness or those who were more judgmental; searches for those terms returned only bibliographic material. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A study by Ostafin and colleagues (2013) found that degree of executive control predicted a similar decoupling effect as self-reported mindfulness.

    “For example, a study by Ostafin and colleagues (2013) found that degree of executive control predicted a similar decoupling effect as self-reported mindfulness.”

    From Decoupling as a Mechanism of Change in Mindfulness and Acceptance: A Literature Review (2015) · cites this paper as Ostafin et al., 2013

    The title in our indexed copy states that both mindfulness and executive control weaken the relation between implicit alcohol valence and preoccupation with alcohol-related thoughts, supporting the claimed similar decoupling effect. The available passages do not say that mindfulness was self-reported or describe the executive-control measure, so those details cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Ostafin et al. (2013), significant moderation effects were found with the FFMQ total score and the FFMQ nonjudgmental subscale.

    “Significant moderation effects were found with the FFMQ total score as well as the FFMQ nonjudgmental subscale.”

    From Decoupling as a Mechanism of Change in Mindfulness and Acceptance: A Literature Review (2015) · cites this paper as Ostafin et al., 2013

    The available passages from the copy (labeled Abstract, no page given) contain bibliographic details and keywords, but no results for the FFMQ. Searches for the FFMQ total score, the nonjudgmental or nonjudging subscale, and moderation effects found no passage that establishes whether either effect was significant. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies that used multiple subscales of self-reported mindfulness tended to find that decoupling effects only occurred with some of the scales.

    “studies that used multiple subscales of self-reported mindfulness tended to find that decoupling effects only occurred with some of the scales (e.g., Ostafin et al., 2013).”

    From Decoupling as a Mechanism of Change in Mindfulness and Acceptance: A Literature Review (2015) · cites this paper as Ostafin et al., 2013

    The available indexed passages are bibliographic material (labeled Abstract, no page given). The title indicates a weakening of the relation between alcohol valence and alcohol-related thoughts, but the passages do not report whether multiple self-reported mindfulness subscales were tested or whether effects occurred for only some. Searches for mindfulness subscales, interactions, and decoupling effects returned no results addressing that distinction. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Ostafin, B. D., Kassman, K. T., & Wessel, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • North Dakota State University (US)
Venue
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
Published
2013-12
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
1153-1158
ISSN
  • 0893-164X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1501
OpenAlex
W2129463419
Cited by
35
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
mindfulness, executive function, attentional capture, self-regulation, working memory, alcohol consumption
MeSH terms
Adult, Alcohol Drinking, Female, Humans, Male, Young Adult, Executive Function, Binge Drinking, Mindfulness

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