CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMental Health Research Topics

Modeling naturalistic craving, withdrawal, and affect during early nicotine abstinence: A pilot ecological momentary assessment study.

Open access
Bujarski, Spencer, Roche, Daniel J. O., Sheets, Erin S., Krull, Jennifer L., Guzman, Iris, Ray, Lara A.·2015·Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology
DOI 10.1037/a0038861PMC PMC4388058
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite the critical role of withdrawal, craving, and positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) in smoking relapse, relatively little is known about the temporal and predictive relationship between these constructs within the first day of abstinence. This pilot study aims to characterize dynamic changes in withdrawal, craving, and affect over the course of early abstinence using ecological momentary assessment. Beginning immediately after smoking, moderate and heavy smoking participants (n = 15 per group) responded to hourly surveys assessing craving, withdrawal, NA, and PA. Univariate and multivariate multilevel random coefficient modeling was used to describe the progression of craving, withdrawal/NA, and PA and to test correlations between these constructs at the subject level over the course of early abstinence. Heavy smokers reported greater craving from 1-4 hr of abstinence and greater withdrawal/NA after 3 or more hours as compared with moderate smokers. Level of withdrawal/NA was strongly positively associated with craving, and PA was negatively correlated with craving; however, the temporal dynamics of these correlations differed substantially. The association between withdrawal/NA and craving decreased over early abstinence, whereas the reverse was observed for PA. These findings can inform experimental studies of nicotine abstinence as well as their clinical applications to smoking cessation efforts. In particular, these results help to elucidate the role of PA in nicotine abstinence by demonstrating its independent association with nicotine craving over and above withdrawal/NA. If supported by future studies, these findings can refine experimental methods and clinical approaches for smoking cessation.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This pilot ecological momentary assessment study modeled craving, withdrawal/negative affect (NA), and positive affect (PA) during the first day of nicotine abstinence in moderate and heavy smokers. It found distinct temporal patterns by smoking heaviness and showed that PA was independently and negatively associated with craving over early abstinence.

Key findings

  • Heavy smokers reported greater craving than moderate smokers from 1–4 hours after the last cigarette, while heavy smokers reported greater withdrawal/NA starting 3 hours after the last cigarette and lasting through the end of the day.
  • PA decreased over early abstinence but did not differ between moderate and heavy smokers.
  • Withdrawal/NA and craving intercepts were positively correlated at all time points (r range: 0.47–0.75, all p’s < 0.01), but this correlation decreased over time (B = −0.058, t = −7.66, p < 0.001).
  • PA and craving intercepts were negatively correlated at 2 or more hours after the last cigarette (r range: −0.362 to −0.423, p’s < 0.05), and the magnitude increased over time; PA and withdrawal/NA intercepts were negatively correlated from 1 hour onward (r range: −0.387 to −0.576, p’s < 0.05).

Methods

  • Pilot EMA study with 32 non-treatment-seeking adults recruited into moderate smokers (5–14 cigarettes/day) and heavy smokers (15–24 cigarettes/day); 30 participants provided sufficient data (n = 15 per group), yielding 309 complete observations.
  • Immediately after smoking their last cigarette of the day, participants completed surveys targeting 0, 5, 15, 30 minutes and then hourly until midnight, assessing craving, withdrawal/NA, and PA; abstinence was verified by expired CO upon return 24 hours later.
  • Univariate and multivariate multilevel random coefficient models examined growth trajectories and between-subject correlations among craving, withdrawal/NA, and PA intercepts and slopes over time.

Limitations

  • The paper states the primary limitation is the small sample size and relatively narrow range of smoking heaviness, with no “chippers.”
  • The paper states participants were not actively trying to quit smoking, and there was no non-abstinence control condition, so diurnal rhythms could partly account for affective changes.
  • The paper states the fixed-interval rapid assessment design limits comparability with random-assessment EMA studies, and environmental stimuli that can drive craving were not adequately modeled.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0038861

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

13 of 49 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Negative affect is highly predictive of cigarette craving in both the laboratory and natural environment.

    “For example, in both the laboratory and natural environment, NA is highly predictive of cigarette craving (Dunbar, Scharf, Kirchner, & Shiffman, 2010; Heckman et al., 2013; Shiyko, Naab, Shiffman, & Li, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dunbar, Scharf, Kirchner, & Shiffman, 2010 source
    • cites Heckman et al., 2013 source

      The Discussion (‘Affective Cues and Craving’; page unavailable) reports strong evidence that laboratory inductions of negative affect evoke cigarette craving. It does not establish that negative affect is highly predictive of craving in natural environments; the Background and Aims instead describes observational findings as inconsistent. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Shiyko, Naab, Shiffman, & Li, 2014 source

      The Empirical Data and TVEM Results sections report momentary assessments during abstinence and a strong association between negative affect and later smoking urges, supporting the natural-environment portion of the claim. The paper does not report a laboratory finding, so it does not support the claim about both settings. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion

    These results are concordant with the finding that abstinence-induced NA was most sensitive to alleviation by nicotine administration.

    “These results are concordant with the finding that abstinence-induced NA was most sensitive to alleviation by nicotine administration (Perkins, Karelitz, Conklin, Sayette, & Giedgowd, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Perkins, Karelitz, Conklin, Sayette, & Giedgowd, 2010 source

      The Results (Negative Affect) report that smoking relieved abstinence-induced negative affect more robustly than negative affect from other sources. But negative affect differed little between the nicotine and denicotinized smoking groups, and the Discussion says either type of cigarette fully relieved it during abstinence. The paper therefore supports heightened sensitivity to smoking, not to nicotine administration specifically. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    The best fitting model for positive affect over Day 1 was a cubic polynomial with all growth parameters varying across individuals (p's < 0.01).

    “In terms of PA, the best fitting model was a cubic polynomial with all growth parameters varying across individuals (p’s < 0.01) presented in Figure 1C.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Ecological momentary assessment self-reports of craving, withdrawal, negative affect, and positive affect accurately reflect participants' internal states.
    • Rests on an assumption: The first 24 hours after the last cigarette is a valid and sufficient window to characterize early nicotine abstinence.
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    The magnitude of the correlation between craving and PA slopes increased after 5 hours (B = −0.24, t = 12.69, p = 0.05).

    “and then proceeded to increase thereafter (B = −0.24, t = 12.69, p = 0.05, correlation magnitudes shown in Figure 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Withdrawal/NA and craving intercepts were significantly and positively correlated at all time points (r range: 0.47 - 0.75, all p's < 0.01).

    “Withdrawal/NA and craving intercepts were significantly and positively correlated at all time points (r range: 0.47 – 0.75, all p’s < 0.01).”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
      “Level of withdrawal/NA was strongly positively associated with craving, and PA was negatively correlated with craving, however the temporal dynamics of these correlations differed substantially.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Ecological momentary assessment self-reports of craving, withdrawal, negative affect, and positive affect accurately reflect participants' internal states.
    • Rests on an assumption: The first 24 hours after the last cigarette is a valid and sufficient window to characterize early nicotine abstinence.
  • May combine two claims. 28
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Nicotine abstinence is associated with symptoms of both increased negative affect and smoking urge/craving.

    “Nicotine abstinence has been associated with symptoms of both increased negative affect (NA) and smoking urge/craving (Chandra, Scharf, & Shiffman, 2011; Zhou et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chandra, Scharf, & Shiffman, 2011 source
    • cites Zhou et al., 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Negative affect, withdrawal, and craving are dissociable, displaying different temporal patterns within and across days.

    “However, NA, withdrawal, and craving also appear to be dissociable, as they can display different temporal patterns within and across days (Chandra et al., 2011; Vasilenko et al., 2014)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chandra et al., 2011 source

      The Results (§3.1; page unavailable) report different within-day patterns for negative affect, craving, and withdrawal symptoms such as restlessness. But the Methods (§2.7; page unavailable) say the data were averaged across days and day-to-day variability was removed, so this paper does not establish different patterns across days. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Vasilenko et al., 2014 source

      The Results and Discussion report that craving and negative affect had different patterns of association with smoking lapse across the two weeks after quitting. The paper did not analyze withdrawal as a separate predictor or show that the three constructs themselves followed different patterns within days. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    A recent meta-analysis indicated that in the laboratory, only manipulations of negative affect, but not positive affect, were directly related to cigarette craving.

    “A recent meta-analysis indicated that in the laboratory, only manipulations of NA, but not PA, were directly related to cigarette craving (Heckman et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Heckman et al., 2013 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    In the natural environment, support for positive affect contributing to ad libitum smoking behavior has been mixed, with some EMA studies reporting a positive association with cigarette craving and smoking and others finding no relationship.

    “In the natural environment, support for PA contributing to ad libitum smoking behavior has been mixed, with some EMA studies reporting a positive association with cigarette craving and smoking (Dunbar et al., 2010; Shiffman et al., 2014; Shiffman & Paty, 2006) and others finding no relationship (Shiffman et al., 2002; Shiffman & Waters, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dunbar et al., 2010 source
    • cites Shiffman et al., 2014 source

      The Discussion reports that smoking increased steadily with positive affect among intermittent smokers, while the association among daily smokers rose and then fell. This supports an association with real-world smoking, but the paper does not report a positive association between positive affect and cigarette craving. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Shiffman & Paty, 2006 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § Introduction

    EMA studies have typically employed either multilevel modeling to examine within-person associations at a defined moment or time-varying effect models to understand the pattern of within-person association over time; however, such techniques cannot examine whether the rates of change or trajectories of craving, withdrawal, negative affect, and positive affect are associated over the course of abst

    “Furthermore, EMA studies have typically employed either a multilevel modeling (MLM) framework to examine within-person associations between variables at a defined moment in time or, more recently, time-varying effect models to understand the pattern of within-person association between variables over time (e.g. Shiyko, Lanza, Tan, Li, & Shiffman, 2012; Shiyko et al., 2014). However, using such EMA”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Shiyko, Lanza, Tan, Li, & Shiffman, 2012 source
    • cites Shiyko et al., 2014 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    A sizeable body of evidence suggests that positive affect and negative affect are independent dimensions with distinct underlying neurological and psychological constructs, and an individual can concurrently experience heightened positive affect and negative affect.

    “However, a sizeable body of evidence suggests that PA and NA are indeed independent dimensions with distinct underlying neurological and psychological constructs, and an individual can concurrently experience, for example, heightened PA and NA (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999; Cook et al., 2004; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; Watson & Tellegen, 1985).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999 source
    • cites Cook et al., 2004 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Craving, withdrawal, and negative affect have been associated with risk for relapse in smoking cessation trials.

    “Craving, withdrawal, and negative affect have been associated with risk for relapse in smoking cessation trials (McCarthy et al., 2006; Piper et al., 2011; Shiffman, 2005; Shiffman et al., 1997)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites McCarthy et al., 2006 source
    • cites Piper et al., 2011 source

      The Results (6 months post-quit; page not provided) associate self-reported tobacco dependence with abstinence, supporting a broader link between dependence and relapse risk. The Methods list craving and withdrawal symptoms as dependence-related measures, but the passages do not establish that either measure—or negative affect—was associated with relapse risk. (LLM, conf=0.79)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Shiffman, 2005 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    These findings are consistent with the use of nicotine replacement therapies targeting withdrawal and antidepressants such as bupropion among heavy smokers.

    “These findings are consistent with the use of nicotine replacement therapies targeting withdrawal (Silagy, Mant, Fowler, & Lodge, 1994; Stead et al., 1996; Wu, Wilson, Dimoulas, & Mills, 2006) and antidepressants such as bupropion (Dale et al., 2001; Eisenberg et al., 2008) among heavy smokers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Silagy, Mant, Fowler, & Lodge, 1994 source
    • cites Stead et al., 1996

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Wu, Wilson, Dimoulas, & Mills, 2006 source

      The Conclusion says NRT presumably reduces nicotine-withdrawal symptoms, and the Discussion reports that NRT improves smoking-cessation rates. The review addresses smokers generally; the cited passages do not establish a finding specifically among heavy smokers. The bupropion clause has separate citations and is not attributed to this source here. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The association between a person's level of craving and that person's level of positive affect increased in magnitude over the time period examined (B = −0.01, t = −2.45, p < 0.05), yet the increase in magnitude was decelerating (Hours2: B = 0.006, t = 9.61, p < 0.001).

    “Overall, the association between a person’s level of craving and that person’s level of PA was found to increase in magnitude over the time period examined (B = −0.01, t = −2.45, p< 0.05), yet the increase in magnitude was decelerating (Hours2: B = 0.006, t = 9.61, p < 0.001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Ecological momentary assessment self-reports of craving, withdrawal, negative affect, and positive affect accurately reflect participants' internal states.
    • Rests on an assumption: The first 24 hours after the last cigarette is a valid and sufficient window to characterize early nicotine abstinence.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The magnitude of correlation between craving and withdrawal/NA generally decreased over time (B = −0.058, t = −7.66, p < 0.001) such that a person's level of withdrawal/NA was a stronger predictor of that person's level of craving early after the last cigarette as compared to later in the night.

    “Magnitude of correlation between craving and withdrawal/NA generally decreased over time (B = −0.058, t = −7.66, p < 0.001) such that a person’s level of withdrawal/NA was a stronger predictor of that person’s level of craving early after the last cigarette as compared to later in the night.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “The association between withdrawal/NA and craving decreased over early abstinence, whereas the reverse was observed for PA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Ecological momentary assessment self-reports of craving, withdrawal, negative affect, and positive affect accurately reflect participants' internal states.
    • Rests on an assumption: The first 24 hours after the last cigarette is a valid and sufficient window to characterize early nicotine abstinence.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    While positive affect decreased over time, this pattern did not differ between moderate and heavy smokers.

    “While PA was found to decrease over time, this pattern did not differ between moderate and heavy smokers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Ecological momentary assessment self-reports of craving, withdrawal, negative affect, and positive affect accurately reflect participants' internal states.
    • Rests on an assumption: The first 24 hours after the last cigarette is a valid and sufficient window to characterize early nicotine abstinence.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Smoking group did not predict progression of positive affect either as a main effect or as a moderator of growth parameters (p's > 0.24).

    “Smoking group was not found to predict progression of PA either as a main effect or as a moderator of growth parameters (p’s > 0.24).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Ecological momentary assessment self-reports of craving, withdrawal, negative affect, and positive affect accurately reflect participants' internal states.
    • Rests on an assumption: The first 24 hours after the last cigarette is a valid and sufficient window to characterize early nicotine abstinence.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    All growth parameters for craving significantly varied across individuals (p's < 0.001) and were estimated as random effects.

    “All growth parameters were found to significantly vary across individuals (p’s < 0.001) and were estimated as random effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Ecological momentary assessment self-reports of craving, withdrawal, negative affect, and positive affect accurately reflect participants' internal states.
    • Rests on an assumption: The first 24 hours after the last cigarette is a valid and sufficient window to characterize early nicotine abstinence.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The correlations between positive affect and withdrawal/NA increased in magnitude over Day 1 (B = −0.042, t = −6.38, p < 0.001), yet this magnitude increase was decelerating (Hours2: B = 0.007, t = 9.76, p < 0.001).

    “These correlations increased in magnitude over Day 1 (B = −0.042, t = −6.38, p < 0.001), yet this magnitude increase was decelerating (Hours2: B = 0.007, t = 9.76, p < 0.001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Ecological momentary assessment self-reports of craving, withdrawal, negative affect, and positive affect accurately reflect participants' internal states.
    • Rests on an assumption: The first 24 hours after the last cigarette is a valid and sufficient window to characterize early nicotine abstinence.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given
    § Introduction

    The temporal and directional relationships between withdrawal, craving, and negative affect at the micro-longitudinal level remain unclear.

    “While withdrawal, craving, and negative affect may each predict one’s ability to remain abstinent, the temporal and directional relationships between these constructs at the micro-longitudinal level remains unclear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § Introduction

    Little is known about the temporal and predictive relationship between withdrawal-related constructs during early abstinence and how smoking heaviness affects the trajectories and relationships between these constructs.

    “In sum, despite the critical role of withdrawal, craving, PA, and NA in the dynamic process of smoking lapse and relapse, little is known about 1) the temporal and predictive relationship between these withdrawal-related constructs during early abstinence and 2) how smoking heaviness affect the trajectories and relationships between these key psychological constructs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    The effects of smoking pattern (heavy vs. moderate) differ over the course of early abstinence and based on the construct of interest.

    “Together, these preliminary results suggest that the effects of smoking pattern (heavy vs. moderate) differ over the course of early abstinence and based on the construct of interest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Method

    Current smoking status was verified by a cotinine test (≥100 ng/ml) and expired carbon monoxide reading at baseline.

    “Current smoking status was also verified by a cotinine test (≥ 100ng/ml of cotinine) and participant’s expired carbon monoxide (CO) reading level was recorded at baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Method

    Upon returning to the laboratory 24 hours later, expired CO readings were collected to verify smoking abstinence and only those with verified abstinence were included in the analyses.

    “Upon returning to the laboratory 24 hours later, expired CO readings were collected to verify smoking abstinence and only those with verified abstinence were included in the analyses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Method

    Intraclass correlations for craving, withdrawal/NA and PA were 0.44, 0.62, and 0.62 respectively, suggesting substantial between-subjects variation in addition to a large proportion of within subject variability.

    “Prior to model estimation, intraclass correlations (ICC) were calculated for each dependent variable. ICCs for craving, withdrawal/NA and PA were 0.44, 0.62, and 0.62 respectively, suggesting substantial between-subjects variation in addition to a large proportion of within subject variability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Heavy daily smokers have demonstrated greater nicotine dependence, withdrawal symptoms, cigarette craving, difficulty quitting smoking, tolerance to nicotine's subjective and cardiovascular effects, and more health-related problems than light daily smokers.

    “For example, heavy daily smokers have demonstrated greater nicotine dependence, withdrawal symptoms, cigarette craving, difficulty quitting smoking (Dale et al., 2001; Killen, Fortmann, Telch, & Newman, 1988; Nides et al., 1995), tolerance to nicotine’s subjective and cardiovascular effects (Perkins, 1995; Perkins, Epstein, Stiller, Marks, & Jacob, 1989), and more health-related problems than”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dale et al., 2001 source
    • cites Killen, Fortmann, Telch, & Newman, 1988

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Nides et al., 1995 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Current theories suggest that negative affect is predictive of craving and lapse/relapse during smoking abstinence, but positive affect is predominantly related to craving and motivation to smoke during ad libitum smoking.

    “Current theories of the role of affect in addiction suggest that NA is predictive of craving and lapse/relapse during smoking abstinence, but that positive affect (PA) is predominantly related to craving and motivation to smoke during ad libitum smoking (Baker, Morse, & Sherman, 1987; Baker, Piper, McCarthy, Majeskie, & Fiore, 2004; Carmody, Vieten, & Astin, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Baker, Morse, & Sherman, 1987

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Baker, Piper, McCarthy, Majeskie, & Fiore, 2004 source
    • cites Carmody, Vieten, & Astin, 2007 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    As intended by participant selection procedures, moderate and heavy smokers significantly differed in average cigarettes per day (p < 0.001), severity of nicotine dependence on FTND (p = 0.001), and time to first cigarette in the morning (p = 0.01).

    “As intended by the participant selection procedures, moderate and heavy smokers significantly differed in terms of average cigarettes per day (p < 0.001), severity of nicotine dependence on the FTND (p = 0.001), and time to first cigarette in the morning (FTND item 1: p = 0.01).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Method

    Sum scores from the three withdrawal questions and four POMS Negative Affect items were correlated 0.79 and were thus summed to produce a single withdrawal/NA scale.

    “Sum scores from the three withdrawal questions and four POMS Negative Affect items were correlated 0.79 and were thus summed to produce a single withdrawal/NA scale (Piasecki, Kenford, Smith, Fiore, & Baker, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Piasecki, Kenford, Smith, Fiore, & Baker, 1997 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Method

    Items for EMA assessment were selected from well validated scales (Questionnaire of Smoking Urges, Minnesota Withdrawal Symptom Scale, Profile of Mood States) and item selection was informed by a principal component analysis on data from a similar sample of daily non-treatment seeking smokers.

    “Items for EMA assessment were selected from well validated scales (e.g., the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges, the Minnesota Withdrawal Symptom Scale and the Profile of Mood States). Item selection was informed by a principal component analysis on data collected during overnight abstinence from a similar sample (i.e., daily non-treatment seeking smokers) recruited for a human laboratory study (Ray”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ray et al., 2013 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Increases in positive affect have been associated with decreased risk for smoking lapse, suggesting a protective role of positive affect in early nicotine abstinence.

    “Conversely, increases in PA have been associated with decreased risk for smoking lapse, suggesting a protective role of PA in early nicotine abstinence (Ferguson, Shiffman, & Gwaltney, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ferguson, Shiffman, & Gwaltney, 2006 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    Participants received an average of 11.97 prompts (SD = 3.32) and completed an average of 10.37 assessments per person (SD = 2.31, range = 7-16).

    “Participants received an average of 11.97 prompts (SD = 3.32) and completed an average of 10.37 assessments per person (SD = 2.31, range = 7–16).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    Of the initial sample of 32, 30 provided sufficient data for statistical analysis (≥4 observations; n=15 per group), from which 309 complete observations were collected.

    “Of the initial sample of 32, a large percentage (N=30) provided sufficient data for statistical analysis (≥ 4 observations; n=15 per group), from which we collected 309 complete observations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    Moderate and heavy smoking groups did not differ in number of subjects or observations in hourly bins (p's ≥0.61).

    “Moderate and heavy smoking groups were not found to differ in terms of either number of subjects or observations in hourly bins (Table S1; p’s ≥0.61).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    The mean time between consecutive assessments was 57.27 min (SD = 17.02).

    “The mean time between consecutive assessments was 57.27 min (SD = 17.02).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    PA has been relatively under-represented as an independent predictor in EMA studies with mixed results when it is examined.

    “As compared to NA, PA has been relatively under-represented as an independent predictor in EMA studies with mixed results when it is examined (e.g. Dunbar et al., 2010; Shiffman et al., 2002, 2014; Shiffman & Waters, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dunbar et al., 2010 source
    • cites Shiffman et al., 2002, 2014

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Shiffman & Waters, 2004 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion

    This study used a fixed-interval rapid assessment design to accurately model short term abstinence, which should be noted when comparing findings with other studies.

    “This study used a fixed-interval rapid assessment design to accurately model short term abstinence, thus this should be noted when comparing findings with other studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: A fixed-interval rapid assessment design accurately models short term abstinence.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    It is possible that diurnal rhythms partially account for the observed changes in affective dimensions, particularly in terms of NA and PA.

    “as it is possible that diurnal rhythms partially account for the observed changes in affective dimensions, particularly in terms of NA and PA which do not explicitly assess nicotine-related effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Discussion

    The primary limitation in this study is the small sample size and relatively narrow range of smoking heaviness.

    “The primary limitation in this study is the small sample size and relatively narrow range of smoking heaviness (e.g. no “chippers”; Shiffman & Paty, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shiffman & Paty, 2006 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion

    Biological verification of abstinence, via CO, strengthens the inferences drawn from this study as only individuals who successfully abstained were included in the analyses.

    “Biological verification of abstinence, via CO, strengthens the inferences drawn from this study as only individuals who successfully abstained where included in the analyses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion

    The potential for diurnal rhythms to fully account for the observed effects involving craving and withdrawal is modest as our findings are largely consistent with prior studies examining short term abstinence effects as compared to non-abstinence ad-libitum smoking.

    “The potential for diurnal rhythms to fully account for the observed effects involving craving and withdrawal is, in our opinion, modest as our findings are largely consistent with prior studies examining short term abstinence effects as compared to non-abstinence ad-libitum smoking (Hendricks et al., 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hendricks et al., 2006 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    The present study underlines the necessity of addressing both NA and PA independently in both etiological research and in treatment development efforts.

    “the present study underlines the necessity of addressing both NA and PA independently in both etiological research and in treatment development efforts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
37 of 37

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Ecological momentary assessment self-reports of craving, withdrawal, negative affect, and positive affect accurately reflect participants' internal states.

    “At each prompt, current craving, withdrawal, NA, and PA were assessed.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The first 24 hours after the last cigarette is a valid and sufficient window to characterize early nicotine abstinence.

    “Immediately after smoking the last cigarette of the day, participants were trained in the EMA protocol and completed the first momentary assessment.”
    “Target assessment points were 0, 5, 15, 30 minutes and then hourly after participants smoked their last cigarette.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Environmental stimuli are significant drivers of craving.

    “Lastly, environmental stimuli have been shown to be significant drivers of craving”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A fixed-interval rapid assessment design accurately models short term abstinence.

    “This study used a fixed-interval rapid assessment design to accurately model short term abstinence”
4 of 4

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Number of complete observations stated inconsistently

    Minor

    The Results report exactly 309 complete observations, while the Discussion says there were over 309.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bliese P. multilevel: Multilevel Functions (Version 2.3) 2008 [Google Scholar]
  2. McNair D, Lorr M, Droppleman L. Two EITS Manual for the Profile of Mood States (1971 & 1992) 1971 Retrieved from http://ubir.buffalo.edu/xmlui/handle/10477/1893. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bujarski, S., Roche, D. J. O., Sheets, E. S., Krull, J. L., Guzman, I., & Ray, L. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Colby College (US)
ORCID
Venue
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2015-04
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
81-89
ISSN
  • 1064-1297 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2293
DOI
10.1037/a0038861
PMC
PMC4388058
OpenAlex
W2332159749
Cited by
39
References
64
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of California, Los Angeles
  • National Institutes of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (F31 AA022569)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
nicotine craving, nicotine withdrawal, negative affect, positive affect, nicotine abstinence, smoking cessation, smoking relapse, heavy smokers
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Female, Humans, Male

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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