Drug craving is typically measured through explicit ratings of craving levels. We examined response time to craving ratings as an implicit measure of craving processes in cigarette smokers. Response time and interitem variability were investigated as potential indices of certainty in craving ratings. Cigarette smokers, categorized as tobacco dependent or nondependent, completed multiple cue-reactivity sessions with smoking and neutral cues. After each cue presentation, craving level and response time were assessed. Significant inverted-U relationships emerged between craving level and both response time and interitem variability across conditions, sessions, and groups. Faster response times and less interitem variability emerged after neutral cues relative to smoking cues for nondependent smokers and after smoking cues relative to neutral cues for dependent smokers. Response time provided incremental validity beyond craving level in predicting dependence. Results support use of response time as an implicit measure of craving processes and further distinguish craving experiences between dependent and nondependent smokers.
AkramiN.HedlundL.-E.EkehammarB. (2007). Personality scale response latencies as self-schema indicators: The inverted-U effect revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 611–618. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.005
2.
AsendorpfJ. B.BanseR.MückeD. (2002). Double dissociation between implicit and explicit personality self-concept: The case of shy behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 380–393. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.380
3.
AvantL. L.BevanW.WingH. (1968). Effects of varying length of stimulus series and response scale upon response latency, response uncertainty, and transmitted information. Perception & Psychophysics, 3, 449–452. doi:10.3758/BF03205753
4.
BassiliJ. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637–653. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.637
5.
BeharI. (1963). On the relation between response uncertainty and reaction time in category judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 16, 595–596. doi:10.2466/pms.1963.16.2.595
6.
BrownS. D.MarleyA. A. J.DonkinC.HeathcoteA. (2008). An integrated model of choices and response times in absolute identification. Psychological Review, 115, 396–425. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.396
7.
CarterB. L.TiffanyS. T. (2001). The cue-availability procedure: The effects of cigarette availability on cue reactivity in smokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 9, 183–190. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.9.2.183
8.
CaseyM. M.TryonW. W. (2001). Validating a double-press method for computer administration of personality inventory items. Psychological Assessment, 13, 521–530. doi:10.I037//1040-3590.13.4.521
9.
CoffeyS. F.SaladinM. E.LibetJ. M.DrobesD. J.DanskyB. S. (1999). Differential urge and salivary responsibility to alcohol cues in alcohol-dependent patients: A comparison of traditional and stringent classification approaches. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 7, 464–472. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.7.4.464
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
De HouwerJ. (2006). What are implicit measures and why are we using them? In WiersR. W.StacyA. W. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction (pp. 11–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
De HouwerJ.Teige-MocigembaS.SpruytA.MoorsA. (2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 347–368. doi:10.1037/a0014211
13.
DeMarreeK. G.PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2007). Self-certainty: Parallels to attitude certainty. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7, 159–188.
14.
DiFranzaJ. R.Sanouri UrsprungW. W.BillerL. (2012). The developmental sequence of tobacco withdrawal symptoms of wanting, craving, and needing. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 100, 494–497. doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2011.10.018
15.
DomierC. P.MonterossoJ. R.BrodyA. L.SimonS. L.MendrekA.OlmsteadR.. . . LondonE. D. (2007). Effects of cigarette smoking and abstinence on Stroop task performance. Psychopharmacology, 195, 1–9. doi:10.1007/s00213-007-0869-x
16.
ErblichJ.BovbjergD. H.SloanR. P. (2011). Exposure to smoking cues: Cardiovascular and autonomic effects. Addictive Behaviors, 36, 737–742. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.02.011
17.
FazioR. H.OlsonM. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225
18.
GassJ. C.MotschmanC. A.TiffanyS. T. (in press). The relationship between craving and tobacco use behavior in laboratory studies: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.
19.
GermerothL. J.WrayJ. M.GassJ. C.TiffanyS. T. (2013). Diagnostic utility of craving in predicting nicotine dependence: Impact of craving content and item stability. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 12, 1988–1995.
20.
GoedekerK. C.TiffanyS. T. (2008). On the nature of nicotine addiction: A taxometric analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 896–909. doi:10.1037/a0013296
21.
GrossS. R.HoltzR.MillerN. (1995). Attitude certainty. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 215–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
HommerD. W. (1999). Functional imaging of craving. Alcohol Research & Health, 23, 187–196.
23.
KrausS. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58–75. doi:10.1177/0146167295211007
24.
KühnS.GallinatJ. (2011). Common biology of craving across legal and illegal drugs: A quantitative meta-analysis of cue-reactivity brain response. European Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 1318–1326. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07590.x
25.
KuiperN. A. (1981). Convergent evidence for the self as a prototype: The “inverted-U RT effect” for self and other judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 438–443. doi:10.1177/014616728173012
26.
KulasJ. T.StachowskiA. A. (2009). Middle category endorsement in odd-numbered Likert response scales: Associated item characteristics, cognitive demands, and preferred meanings. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 489–493. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.005
27.
LaRoweS. D.SaladinM. E.CarpenterM. J.UpadhyayaH. P. (2007). Reactivity to nicotine cues over repeated cue reactivity sessions. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2888–2899. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.04.025
28.
MignaultA.MarleyA. A.ChaudhuriA. (2008). Inverted-U effects generalize to the judgment of subjective properties of faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1274–1288. doi:10.3758/PP.70.7.1274
29.
MobergM. (2013). Engaging in anthropological theory: A social and political history. New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2003). State estimates of substance use from the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume II. Individual state tables and technical appendices (DHHS Publication No. SMA 03-2826, NHSDA Series H-20). Rockville, MD: Author.
31.
Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2004). Results from the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 04-3964, NSDUH Series H-25). Rockville, MD: Author.
32.
OrleansC. T.RimerB. K.CristinzioS.KeintzM. K.FleisherL. (1991). A national survey of older smokers: Treatment needs of a growing population. Health Psychology, 10, 343–351. doi:10.1037/02786133.10.5.343
33.
PaulhusD. L.VazireS. (2007). The self-report method. In RobinsR. W.FraleyR. C.KrugerR. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224–239). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
PerkinsK. A. (2009). Does smoking cue-induced craving tell us anything important about nicotine dependence?Addiction, 104, 1610–1616. doi:10.1111/j.13600443.2009.02550.x
36.
PiperM. E.BoltD. M.KimS.-Y.JapuntichS. J.SmithS. S.NiederdeppeJ.. . . BakerT. B. (2008). Refining the tobacco dependence phenotype using the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 747–761. doi:10.1037/a0013298
37.
PiperM. E.McCarthyD. E.BakerT. B. (2006). Assessing tobacco dependence: A guide to measure evaluation and selection. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 8, 339–351. doi:10.1080/14622200600672765
38.
PiperM. E.McCarthyD. E.BoltD. M.SmithS. S.LermanC.BenowitzN.. . . BakerT. B. (2008). Assessing dimensions of nicotine dependence: An evaluation of the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale (NDSS) and the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM). Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 10, 1009–1020. doi:10.1080/14622200802097563
39.
PiperM. E.PiaseckiT. M.FedermanE. B.BoltD. M.SmithS. S.FioreM. C.BakerT. B. (2004). A multiple motives approach to tobacco dependence: The Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM-68). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 139–154. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.2.139
40.
ReadJ. P.WoodM. D.LejuezC. W.PalfaiT. P.SlackM. (2004). Gender, alcohol consumption, and differing alcohol expectancy dimensions in college drinkers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 12, 298–308. doi: 10.1037/10641297.12.4.298
41.
RobinsonT. E.BerridgeK. C. (1993). The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Research Reviews, 18, 247–291. doi:10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-P
42.
RosenbergH. (2009). Clinical and laboratory assessment of the subjective experience of drug craving. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 519–534. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.002
43.
SaladinM. E.GrayK. M.CarpenterM. J.LaRoweS. D.DeSantisS. M.UpadhyayaH. P. (2012). Gender differences in craving and cue reactivity to smoking and negative affect/stress cues. The American Journal on Addictions, 21, 210–220. doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2012.00232.x
44.
SayetteM. A.HuffordM. R. (1995). Urge and affect: A facial coding analysis of smokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 3, 417–423. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.3.4.417
45.
SayetteM. A.MartinC. S.WertzJ. M.ShiffmanS.PerrottM. A. (2001). A multi-dimensional analysis of cue-elicited craving in heavy smokers and tobacco chippers. Addiction, 96, 1419–1432. doi:10.1080/09652140120075152
46.
SayetteM. A.ShiffmanS.TiffanyS. T.NiauraR. S.MartinC. S.ShadelW. G. (2000). The measurement of drug craving. Addiction, 95, S189–S210. doi:10.1080/09652140050111762
47.
SayetteM. A.TiffanyS. T. (2013). Peak provoked craving: An alternative to smoking cue reactivity. Addiction, 108, 1019–1025. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04013.x
48.
ShiffmanS.DunbarM.KirchnerT. R.LiX.TindleH. A.AndersonS. J.SchollS. M. (2013). Smoker reactivity to cues: Effects on craving and on smoking behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 264–280. doi:10.1037/a0028339
49.
ShiffmanS.DunbarM.KirchnerT. R.LiX.TindleH. A.AndersonS. J.. . . FergusonS. G. (2013). Cue reactivity in non-daily smokers. Psychopharmacology, 226, 321–333. doi:10.1007/s00213-012-2909-4
50.
ShiffmanS.KasselJ. D.PatyJ.GnysM.Zettler-SegalM. (1994). Smoking typology profiles of chippers and regular smokers. Journal of Substance Abuse, 6, 21–35. doi:10.1016/S0899-3289(94)90052-3
51.
SmolkaM. N.BühlerM.KleinS.ZimmermannU.MannK.HeinzA.BrausD. F. (2006). Severity of nicotine dependence modulates cue-induced brain activity in regions involved in motor preparation and imagery. Psychopharmacology, 184, 577–588. doi:10.1007/s00213-005-0080-x
52.
SobellL. C.SobellM. B. (1996). Timeline followback user’s guide: A calendar method for assessing alcohol and drug use. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Addiction Research Foundation.
53.
StacyA. W.WiersR. W. (2010). Implicit cognition and addiction: A tool for explaining paradoxical behavior. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 551–575. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131444
54.
TiffanyS. T. (1990). A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use behavior: Role of automatic and nonautomatic processes. Psychological Review, 97, 147–168. doi:10.1037/0033295X.97.2.147
55.
TiffanyS. T.FriedmanL.GreenfieldS. F.HasinD. S.JacksonR. (2012). Beyond drug use: A systematic consideration of other outcomes in evaluations of treatments for substance use disorders. Addiction, 107, 709–718. doi:10.1111/j.13600443.2011.03581.x
56.
TiffanyS. T.WarthenM. W.GoedekerK. C. (2009). The functional significance of craving in nicotine dependence. In BevinsR. A.CaggiulaA. R. (Eds.), The motivational impact of nicotine and its role in tobacco use (pp. 171–197). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
57.
TiffanyS. T.WrayJ. M. (2012). The clinical significance of drug craving. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1248, 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.17496632.2011.06298.x
58.
Vollstädt-KleinS.KobiellaA.BühlerM.GrafC.FehrC.MannK.SmolkaM. N. (2010). Severity of dependence modulates smokers’ neuronal cue reactivity and cigarette craving elicited by tobacco advertisement. Addiction Biology, 16, 166–175. doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2010.00207.x
59.
WatersA. J.SayetteM. A. (2006). Implicit cognition and tobacco addiction. In WiersR. W.StacyA. W. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction (pp. 309–338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
WatersA.ShiffmanS.SayetteM.PatyJ.GwaltneyC.BalabanisM. (2004). Cue provoked craving and nicotine replacement therapy in smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 1136–1143. doi:10.1037/0022006X.72.6.1136
61.
WiersR. W.StacyA. W. (2006). Implicit cognition and addiction: An introduction. In WiersR. W.StacyA. W. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction (pp. 1–8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62.
WrayJ. M.GassJ. G.MillerE. I.WilkinsD. G.RollinsD. E.TiffanyS. T. (2014). An evaluation of self-report measures of cigarette use in nondaily smokers. Manuscript in preparation.
63.
WrayJ. M.GassJ. G.TiffanyS. T. (2013). The magnitude and reliability of cue specific craving in nondependent smokers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 134, 304–308. doi:10.1093/ntr/nts268
64.
WrayJ. M.GodleskiS. A.TiffanyS. T. (2011). Cue-reactivity in the natural environment of cigarette smokers: The impact of photographic and in vivo smoking stimuli. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 733–737. doi:10.1037/a0023687
