AIMS: To quantify the effect of negative affect (NA), when manipulated experimentally, upon smoking as measured within laboratory paradigms. Quantitative meta-analyses tested the effects of NA versus neutral conditions on (1) latency to smoke and (2) number of puffs taken. METHODS: Twelve experimental studies tested the influence of NA induction, relative to a neutral control condition (n = 1190; range = 24-235). Those providing relevant data contributed to separate random-effects meta-analyses to examine the effects of NA on two primary smoking measures: (1) latency to smoke (nine studies) and (2) number of puffs taken during ad libitum smoking (11 studies). Hedge's g was calculated for all studies through the use of post-NA cue responses relative to post-neutral cue responses. This effect size estimate is similar to Cohen's d, but corrects for small sample size bias. RESULTS: NA reliably decreased latency to smoke (g = -0.14; CI = -0.23 to -0.04; P = 0.007) and increased number of puffs taken (g = 0.14; CI = 0.02 to 0.25; P = 0.02). There was considerable variability across studies for both outcomes (I(2) = 51 and 65% for latency and consumption, respectively). Potential publication bias was indicated for both outcomes, and adjusted effect sizes were smaller and no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In experimental laboratory studies of smokers, negative affect appears to reduce latency to smoking and increase number of puffs taken, but this could be due to publication bias.
AIMS: To quantify the effect of negative affect (NA), when manipulated experimentally, upon smoking as measured within laboratory paradigms. Quantitative meta-analyses tested the effects of NA versus neutral conditions on (1) latency to smoke and (2) number of puffs taken. METHODS: Twelve experimental studies tested the influence of NA induction, relative to a neutral control condition (n = 1190; range = 24-235). Those providing relevant data contributed to separate random-effects meta-analyses to examine the effects of NA on two primary smoking measures: (1) latency to smoke (nine studies) and (2) number of puffs taken during ad libitum smoking (11 studies). Hedge's g was calculated for all studies through the use of post-NA cue responses relative to post-neutral cue responses. This effect size estimate is similar to Cohen's d, but corrects for small sample size bias. RESULTS: NA reliably decreased latency to smoke (g = -0.14; CI = -0.23 to -0.04; P = 0.007) and increased number of puffs taken (g = 0.14; CI = 0.02 to 0.25; P = 0.02). There was considerable variability across studies for both outcomes (I(2) = 51 and 65% for latency and consumption, respectively). Potential publication bias was indicated for both outcomes, and adjusted effect sizes were smaller and no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In experimental laboratory studies of smokers, negative affect appears to reduce latency to smoking and increase number of puffs taken, but this could be due to publication bias.
Authors: Mónica Hernández-López; M Carmen Luciano; Jonathan B Bricker; Jesús G Roales-Nieto; Francisco Montesinos Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2009-12
Authors: Bryan W Heckman; Michelle A Kovacs; Nicole S Marquinez; Lauren R Meltzer; Maria E Tsambarlis; David J Drobes; Thomas H Brandon Journal: Addiction Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Brian L Carter; Cho Y Lam; Jason D Robinson; Megan M Paris; Andrew J Waters; David W Wetter; Paul M Cinciripini Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Bryan W Heckman; K Michael Cummings; Jonathan J K Stoltman; Jennifer Dahne; Ron Borland; Geoffrey T Fong; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2018-11-23
Authors: Bryan W Heckman; David A MacQueen; Nicole S Marquinez; James MacKillop; Warren K Bickel; Thomas H Brandon Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2017-04