Cited by 71Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

Influence of affective manipulations on cigarette craving: a meta-analysis: Affect manipulations and craving

Open access
Heckman, Bryan W., Kovacs, Michelle A., Marquinez, Nicole S., Meltzer, Lauren R., Tsambarlis, Maria E., Drobes, David J., Brandon, Thomas H.·2013·Addiction

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Retrospective self-report and observational studies have yielded inconsistent findings regarding the capacity of negative affect (NA) to increase smoking motivation among dependent samples. Controlled laboratory studies offer an alternative paradigm for testing the role of affective state upon smoking motivation. The aim of the current study was to quantify cue-provoked cravings produced by affective manipulations in the published literature, and to identify theoretical and methodological moderators. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify experimental studies that manipulated NA or positive affect (PA), and assessed post-manipulation craving. Separate random-effects meta-analyses examined NA and PA cues as predictors of self-reported craving. Self-reported affect (NA and PA), nicotine deprivation, gender, nicotine dependence, order of cue presentation, single versus multi-item craving assessment and affect induction method were tested as moderators of affective cue-induced craving. RESULTS: NA manipulations produced a medium effect [g = 0.47; confidence interval (CI) = 0.31-0.63] on craving, but no main effects were found for PA manipulations (g = 0.05; CI = -0.09 to 0.20) on craving. Self-reported NA moderated the extent to which NA and PA manipulations elicited craving (P < 0.02 for each). That is, more effective NA manipulations produced greater cravings, and PA manipulations reduced cravings when they reduced NA. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory studies indicate that negative, but not positive, affect is a situational determinant of cravings to smoke among dependent smokers. Adverse emotional states increase craving to smoke among dependent smokers, but positive emotional states do not consistently reduce craving to smoke.

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 · 10.1111/add.12284

Cites

105 of 105 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?

  • 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).”

    From Modeling naturalistic craving, withdrawal, and affect during early nicotine abstinence: A pilot ecological momentary assessment study. (2015) · cites this paper as Heckman et al., 2013

    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
  • 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).”

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

1 of the 106 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heckman, B. W., Kovacs, M. A., Marquinez, N. S., Meltzer, L. R., Tsambarlis, M. E., Drobes, D. J., & Brandon, T. H.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Brandon, Thomas H.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-14
Volume
108
Issue
12
Pages
2068-2078
ISSN
0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1923557769
Cited by
71
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (F31DA033058)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA134347, R01CA137357)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
cigarette craving, negative affect, positive affect, emotional manipulation, smoking motivation, nicotine dependence, nicotine deprivation, self-reported affect, smoking cessation
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Cues, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Smoking, Behavior, Addictive, Self Report

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