We also found that effects of expected cravings were stronger for in vivo cues than for imaginal cues. It is possible that participants were less sure of what to expect prior to imaginal cue exposure because they were less familiar with imagery than with in vivo cues. This raises the important possibility that effects of expectancies may be stronger when smokers are more selleckchem Vandetanib aware of how a given cue may affect them. These mixed effects warrant additional attention. Future research could examine the impact of more general craving expectancies on actual cravings that would be relevant both to laboratory-based cues as well as naturalistic triggers in the environment. Finally, the study focused only on smoking cues. The possibility that expected and actual responses to affective cues are important predictors of smoking outcomes also warrants further study.

Indeed, studies have demonstrated that affective cues can elicit strong craving reactions (e.g., Niaura et al., 1998). We also cannot rule out the possibility that assessments of expected and actual cravings in close proximity created a self-fulfilling prophecy, thus inflating their correlation. Nevertheless, our results indicated that the two assessments were differentially related to smoking variables, suggesting that they did tap distinct processes. These findings should be considered preliminary, requiring a follow-up study in which assessments of expected and actual cravings are temporally more distinct. It should also be noted that we employed a multifaceted assessment of craving.

Given recent animal research suggesting that cue-induced cravings can have multiple distinct elements (Scott & Hiroi, 2011), it might be important to develop novel assessments for humans that tap these processes more directly. In addition, the clinical relevance of the relationship between expected Entinostat cravings and cessation failure needs to be determined. Indeed, the degree to which findings in the current sample of nondeprived smokers not currently in treatment generalizes to deprived smokers trying to quit remains to be determined. Evidence from Sayette et al. (Sayette, Loewenstein, Griffin, & Black, 2008; Sayette, Loewenstein, Kirchner, & Travis, 2005), however, suggests that predictions of later cravings tend to be even more accurate in deprived smokers, suggesting that the present results may be applicable to deprived states as well. Finally, results suggest that it is possible that cognitive interventions aimed at managing expected cravings may prove to be more efficacious than interventions to manage cue-induced cravings per se. Clinical research addressing this interesting possibility is also warranted and may lead to innovations in managing cravings and enhancing quit success.