A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of mood inductions in eliciting emotion-based behavioral risk-taking and craving in the laboratory.

Abstract

Urgency research supports the role of emotions in risk-taking and craving. However, much of this work is based in self-report. It is not yet known whether existing experimental methods can effectively induce emotion-based risk-taking and craving. The present meta-analysis quantified the effectiveness of mood inductions in inducing risk-taking and craving in the laboratory. We also examined potential moderators, including participant factors, changes in emotional arousal, and study design factors. For negative mood inductions, the degree of changes in risk-taking, k = 35, Hedge’s g (SE) = .12 (.04), 95% CI [.04, .21], and craving, k = 37, Hedge’s g (SE) = .30 (.06), 95% CI [.19, .40] were small. Increases in emotional arousal were significantly related to increases in craving (B* = .26). For positive mood inductions, there was no significant change in risk-taking, k = 18, Hedge’s g (SE) = .17 (.11), 95% CI [–.04, .38] nor craving, k = 8, Hedge’s g (SE) = –.10 (.10), 95% CI [–.31, .10]; however, false positive feedback produced the largest increase in risk-taking. Study samples using guided imagery produced a moderate decrease in risk-taking. Overall, existing negative mood inductions increased risk-taking and craving in the laboratory to a small degree. Existing positive mood inductions failed to elicit risk-taking or craving, although the literature in this domain was sparser. We suggest that there is a great need to develop and optimize mood induction methods to better study emotion-based risk-taking and craving in the laboratory.

Experimental Investigation of the Influence of Positive Emotion Dysregulation on Risky Behavior Following Idiographic Emotion Inductions

“…Although not a primary aim of the current study, it is important to note that there were no significant differences in self-report state urges for substances and the BART across the negative, positive, and neutral emotion-induction conditions. These findings are partially consistent with a meta-analysis by Um et al (2022), which found that negative emotion induction increased risk-taking and craving in the laboratory to a small degree, whereas positive emotion induction failed to elicit risk-taking or craving. Of note, however, are important differences between the current study and Um et al’s (2022) meta-analytic review.…”

“…These findings are partially consistent with a meta-analysis by Um et al (2022), which found that negative emotion induction increased risk-taking and craving in the laboratory to a small degree, whereas positive emotion induction failed to elicit risk-taking or craving. Of note, however, are important differences between the current study and Um et al’s (2022) meta-analytic review. First and foremost, the goal of the current study was to compare the positive emotion-induction condition with the negative and neutral emotion-induction conditions; primary analyses did not include comparison of negative and neutral emotion-induction conditions.…”

“…Of note, however, are important differences between the current study and Um et al's (2022) meta-analytic review. First and foremost, the goal of the current study was to compare the positive emotion-induction condition with the negative and neutral emotion-induction conditions; primary analyses did not include comparison of negative and Further, our goals in the current study differed from those of Um et al (2022). The current study explored the relation of emotion dysregulation to risky behavior following emotion induction, whereas Um et al (2022) excluded studies that measured aspects of emotion beyond in-the-moment emotion ratings, such as dysregulation.…”

“…First and foremost, the goal of the current study was to compare the positive emotion-induction condition with the negative and neutral emotion-induction conditions; primary analyses did not include comparison of negative and Further, our goals in the current study differed from those of Um et al (2022). The current study explored the relation of emotion dysregulation to risky behavior following emotion induction, whereas Um et al (2022) excluded studies that measured aspects of emotion beyond in-the-moment emotion ratings, such as dysregulation. Additionally, whereas the current study examined both subjective and objective metrics of emotion dysregulation, Um et al (2022) excluded studies when emotion ratings were solely derived from physiological responses.…”

“…Given growing experimental research on risky behavior in the context of both negative and positive emotion states (Cyders et al, 2010; Um et al, 2022), this latter gap represents one of the major contributions of the current study. Research points to several psychophysiological markers of emotion.…”