Marijuana Paper

Marijuana Use Among College Students Running Head: MARIJUANA USE AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

Marijuana Use Among College Students and Perceived Use Michael Croghan Saint Louis University

1

Marijuana Use Among College Students

2

Abstract Marijuana use is prevalent amongst college students and has many perceptions, such as decreased performance in school yet a less impairing force than alcohol. Two research studies are summarized, one describing the associations between the perceived norms of marijuana and social expectancies of college students and another studying the perceptions of driving under the influence of marijuana and alcohol, respectively. The findings of these articles are combined and analyzed with the preconceived notions of the author.

Marijuana Use Among College Students

3

Marijuana use amongst college students consists of the recreational use of marijuana by young adults between the approximate ages of eighteen and twenty-four. Marijuana use, by my observations, has been associated with poor performance in school, a lack of ambition in school and career, and use of other illicit drugs. While negative connotations about marijuana use have seemed to increase each decade, I have found it still maintains a less impairing reputation than alcohol amongst my peers. Marijuana use by college students interests me for many reasons. First, some of my immediate friends use marijuana, and so studies on its use and effects can be useful so that I can better inform them. Secondly, I have found that there are varying opinions on marijuana use and its effects, and I am skeptical of the sources. Thus, I find it is important to find reputable sources to sort researched truths from propagated lies. Lastly, I am interested in how my opinions about marijuana use compare with other college students. The first article I read was a research article from the University of Washington entitled Perceived Marijuana Norms and Social Expectancies Among Entering College Student Marijuana Users by Neighbors, Geisner, and Lee (2008). Their research described the descriptive and injunctive perceived social norms amongst freshmen marijuana users, their social expectancies, and their marijuana use. Descriptive norms include perceived use amongst their friends, and injunctive norms include approval of marijuana use amongst their friends. Social expectancies include what they expect the social consequences of marijuana use to be, and marijuana use measures the amount of marijuana used (Neighbors, Geisner, and Lee, 2008).

Marijuana Use Among College Students

4

The authors concede that current research has shown social influences are strongly associated with risk-related behaviors, such as drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, and there is an association between perceived norms and marijuana use. There is no current research on the effects of injunctive and descriptive norms on predicting marijuana use, however, and they believe it is important to study (Neighbors, Geisner, and Lee, 2008). There are three hypotheses in this study. First, a positive correlation exists between descriptive norms, injunctive norms, social expectancies and the frequency and consequences of marijuana use. Secondly, there is a stronger association between personal marijuana use and use amongst one’s peers when there is a greater approval of use amongst peers. Lastly, a stronger correlation would exist between perceived norms and marijuana use when positive social expectancies are present and that these correlations would help predict marijuana related consequences (Neighbors, Geisner, and Lee, 2008).. The methodology included participants that were high school graduates attending a large public university the following year between the ages of 17 and 19. The authors gathered names from the registrar and conducted a web survey asking about behavior relating to alcohol and marijuana. Participants received ten dollars. Women and Caucasians were overrepresented, and African Americans were underrepresented. The average age in the study was greater than the average age of the freshman population. If there was use in the previous ninety days, those participants were asked to take another survey. Out of the 370 who reported use, 351 took the next survey. The demographics were 55% female, 17.97 years of age, 76% Caucasian, 9% Asian, and 15% other

Marijuana Use Among College Students

5

ethnicities. Participants in this survey received thirty dollars (Neighbors, Geisner, and Lee, 2008). The authors measured social norms by asking about friends’ use, or descriptive norms, and friends’ approval, or injunctive norms. They measured social expectancies by asking 48 questions about social effects of the use of marijuana. They measured marijuana use by asking about frequency of use in the last 90 days and frequency of negative consequences in the past 90 days (Neighbors, Geisner, and Lee, 2008).. The authors analyzed the data using SPS 14.0 analyses. More specifically, they used the data to analyze the effects of injunctive and descriptive norms, along with social expectancies on frequency of marijuana use and its consequences (Neighbors, Geisner, and Lee, 2008). The results were an average use of 11 days, with a range of 1-85 in the past 90 days. The average number of negative problems was 2, with a range of 0-17 in the past 90 days. There was a positive association between higher frequency of marijuana use and perceived descriptive and injunctive norms along with social expectancies. The results were the same with consequences with regards to perceived descriptive norms and social expectancies, except injunctive norms was not positively associated with use (Neighbors, Geisner, and Lee, 2008). The results of the study were mostly expected, with one exception. The negative association between injunctive norms and consequences was unexpected. There were limitations to the study, which included the limitations of the variable used, i.e. number of days used, and self-report. It is not clear how well the variable number of days accounts

Marijuana Use Among College Students

6

for use, and self-report is an issue when dealing with illegal drugs, although confidentiality was ensured (Neighbors, Geisner, and Lee, 2008). The second article was Driving After Use of Alcohol and Marijuana in College Students by McCarthy, Lynch, and Pedersen (2007). Their research described the perceptions of college students about the dangers and consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana. The authors acknowledge a high rate of fatalities due to car accidents amongst college-aged students, that a high rate of those killed were intoxicated, and that a high rate of college-aged students admit to drinking and driving. The authors contend that marijuana use is prevalent among this age group as well, and thus want to study driving after its use (McCarthy, Lynch, and Pedersen, 2007). The first hypothesis of the study was that driving after marijuana use is more acceptable to peers than driving after alcohol consumption, that it is not as dangerous, and that it is less likely to have harmful consequences. The second hypothesis was that a greater acceptance, lower predictions of danger, and lower expected probability of harmful consequences of driving after marijuana use would be associated with a greater probability and frequency of driving after the use of alcohol or marijuana (McCarthy, Lynch, and Pedersen, 2007). The participants in the study included students from an Introduction to Psychology class at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Of the 599 participants, 59% were female and the average age was 18.54. The ethnicities were 87% Caucasian, 7% African American, 3% Asian, 3% mixed or other, and 3% Hispanic. Data was collected in groups that numbered between 10 and 25, and partial credit for a research requirement was given to participants (McCarthy, Lynch, and Pedersen, 2007).

Marijuana Use Among College Students

7

The study measured demographic information, including age, gender, religion, and ethnicity. The authors studied normative beliefs by asking questions about disapproval by friends of drinking and driving and the probability friends would refuse a ride from someone who has been drinking. The same types of questions were asked with regards to marijuana. The authors measured attitudes by asking questions about the dangers of driving after drinking alcohol and the dangers of driving after smoking marijuana. The study measured perceived negative consequences by asking about the perceived risks of being stopped by police, being tested for alcohol consumption or marijuana use, getting arrested, and getting in a car accident. The authors studied alcohol and marijuana use by asking questions to determine alcohol and marijuana habits. The study also measured driving after substantial use by asking questions regarding how often the participant drove under both influences respectively in the past three months (McCarthy, Lynch, and Pedersen, 2007). The results were that 55% of current drinkers drove after drinking in the past three months and 47% of current smokers drove after smoking in the past three months. Also, greater alcohol use was associated with greater acceptance by peers and the perception that driving after drinking is not as dangerous. Greater alcohol use was only weakly associated with perceived negative consequences about drinking and driving. Frequency of marijuana use was associated with every variable, namely peer acceptance, perceived dangers of driving after marijuana use, and perceived consequences. Also, frequency of substance use was positively associated with increased drinking and driving and smoking and driving. Lastly, lower perceived dangers and greater peer acceptance was associated

Marijuana Use Among College Students

8

with greater probability and frequency of driving after use of either substance (McCarthy, Lynch, and Pedersen, 2007). The findings of the study support the hypothesis that marijuana users find driving after smoking less impairing than diving after drinking, although the results differed depending on the number of drinks. As alcohol consumption increased, perceived dangers of drinking and driving increased and surpassed smoking and driving. There are limits to the study, however. Self-reporting about illegal drug use, regardless of confidentiality, is not always accurate. Also, there was no quantity of marijuana use studied, and the effect of that variable is unknown as amount used per day increases (McCarthy, Lynch, and Pedersen, 2007). Both studies affirmed some preconceived notions I held about marijuana use in college students. The study about driving after marijuana use affirmed the opinion that I have heard propagated that it is less dangerous to drive after using marijuana than after alcohol. Also, the first study affirmed the opinion that I previously held, but did not think to include in my introduction, that increases in frequency of use of marijuana are associated with an increase in perceived approval and use by friends of users. I did not expect to find the percentage of alcohol and marijuana users who drive under the influence to be so high, although most surveys and figures I have previously seen did not indicate whether they asked only current users or all college students. Nonetheless, I was surprised by how high the numbers were.

Marijuana Use Among College Students

9

References McCarthy, D. M., Lynch, A. M., Pedersen, S. L. (2007). Driving After Use of Alcohol and Marijuana in College Students. Psychology of Addictive Behavior 21(3). Retrieved October 21, 2008, from PsycARTICLES database. Neighbors, C., Geisner, I. M., Lee, C. M. (2008). Perceived Marijuana Norms and Social Expectancies Among Entering College Student Marijuana Users. Psychology of Addictive Behavior 22(3). Retrieved October 21, 2008, from PsycARTICLES database.