ArticleAddictive behaviors2018
A response surface analysis of expected and received support for smoking cessation: Expectancy violations predict greater relapse.
Article in Addictive behaviors, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Characterizing the Impact of Dyadic Motivations to Quit on Cessation Outcomes in Dual-Smoking Couples.Tobacco use insights · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People attempting to stop smoking cigarettes (quitters) hold expectations about the extent to which their partner will provide helpful support during a quit attempt. However, these expectations may not align with their perceptions of the helpfulness of the support they receive. We examine expected and received helpful support during a quit attempt. We hypothesized that receiving less helpful support than expected (i.e., creating an expectancy violation) would be associated with the greatest return to smoking. Sixty-two quitters completed a 21-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study. They reported expected support at baseline and support receipt and smoking during the EMA phase. At follow-up, they completed an expelled breath carbon monoxide test. Analyses using polynomial generalized linear models with response surface analysis indicated that smoking outcomes depended on the joint influence of expected and received helpful support. As hypothesized, when quitters expected more helpful support than they received, they were more likely to smoke in the first 24h and the last seven days of the EMA, and they provided higher carbon monoxide readings at follow-up. These results are consistent with an expectancy violation explanation: quitters are more likely to smoke when they perceive their partner has failed to provide support that is as helpful as expected. Given the importance of support for smoking cessation, many researchers have attempted to experimentally increase provision of support. The current findings suggest that partner support interventions might backfire if the quitter is led to expect more helpful support than the partner is able to provide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.