05). Mapping the Forms of the Significant Interactions Based on the recommendations of Cohen and Cohen (1983, p. 323), the forms of the significant interactions were examined by inserting specific values for each predictor variable into the equations associated with the described analysis (half SD above and below the mean for PDS total). As depicted in Figure 1, the significant interactive selleck Imatinib effects are evident at Minutes 3 (p = .06) and 4 (p < .05) of the challenge paradigm only. Inconsistent with prediction, the highest levels of anxiety ratings were reported by the smoking-as-usual groups. Discussion Consistent with prediction, posttraumatic stress symptom severity was significantly predictive of peri-challenge anxiety.

Specifically, posttraumatic stress symptom severity was incrementally predictive of anxious responding at Minutes 3 and 4 of the challenge, though it demonstrated only a trend toward statistical significance at Minutes 1 and 2 of the challenge (p��s = .07). This finding is consistent with past work (Feldner et al., 2008). These results utilize a trauma-exposed sample with varying levels of posttraumatic stress (mostly without PTSD) to extend previous work, which demonstrated that smokers with PTSD compared with those without PTSD report more anxiety and smoking craving following both trauma-related and general stress scripts (Beckham et al., 2007). Furthermore, the observed difference with respect to the role of posttraumatic stress symptom severity and anxious arousal at Minutes 1�C2, and in contrast to Minutes 3�C4 of the challenge, may be due to an increasing perceived intensity of the challenge over time as well as limited statistical power as a function of the sample size.

Contrary to prediction, the main effect of 12-hr cigarette deprivation was not a significant predictor of peri-challenge anxious responding. The smoking-as-usual group (in contrast to cigarette deprivation) emerged as a significant incremental predictor of anxious responding at Minutes 1, 3, and 4 of the challenge paradigm. This finding is consistent with the cigarette deprivation effects noted in at least one previous study using the identical laboratory paradigm (Vujanovic & Zvolensky, Brefeldin_A 2009). Furthermore, this unexpected finding might be attributable to at least three possible nonmutually exclusive reasons. First, despite random assignment of participants to the cigarette deprivation versus smoking-as-usual groups, the latter group evidenced a higher total number of Axis I diagnoses (23 total diagnoses among 36 individuals) as compared with the cigarette deprivation group (13 total diagnoses among 27 individuals).