Dual use of alcohol and cannabis among college students: A reinforcer pathologies approach.

Abstract

The reinforcer pathologies model proposes 2 behavioral economic constructs interact in addiction: operant demand and delay discounting. These constructs manifest as behavioral markers of addiction in the form of excessive reinforcer value and strong preference for immediate access and consumption of this reinforcer despite suboptimal long-term outcomes. The first aim of this investigation was to identify the degree to which delay discounting (of money and alcohol) and demand for alcohol differ between college student drinkers (N ϭ 185) who do and do not co-use cannabis. As a second aim, we sought to replicate the 2-factor solution for alcohol and cannabis demand within a college sample. Results suggest dual users have significantly stronger Persistence and Amplitude for alcohol, demonstrate steeper delay discounting of alcoholic drinks, and are at greater risk for alcohol use disorder than individuals who drink yet do not use cannabis. These results provide further support for the reinforcer pathologies model and contribute to the literature on dual-substance use in the college population. Public Health SignificanceDual use of alcohol and cannabis appears to be associated with adverse behavioral and psychological consequences and is a rapidly growing public health concern. This study suggests dual users have greater demand for alcohol, steeply discount delayed alcoholic drinks, and are at higher risk for alcohol use disorder than individuals who consume alcohol but do not consume cannabis. These results contribute to the literature on dual use among college students and fit well within a reinforcer pathologies framework.

Statistically derived patterns of behavioral economic risk among heavy-drinking college students: A latent profile analysis.

“…The results also showed that individuals with greater cannabis use were more likely to be in the HRHD class relative to the MRLD class, which is consistent with studies that have shown that concurrent cannabis use is associated with greater levels of alcohol demand (Morris et al, 2018;Naudé, Reed, Thornton, & Amlung, 2020;Ramirez, Cadigan, & Lee, 2020), lower substance-free reinforcement (Meshesha, Dennhardt, & Murphy, 2015), and higher rates of problematic alcohol use (Naudé et al, 2020). This result extends the findings of previous studies that demonstrate the association of polysubstance use and maladaptive decisionmaking.…”

Alcohol Use Disorders among Slovak and Czech University Students: A Closer Look at Tobacco Use, Cannabis Use and Socio-Demographic Characteristics

“…The combined use of addictive substances in the university environment is not an exceptional phenomenon either [ 7 ]. According to Nasui et al [ 8 ], both male and female university drinkers engaged in other risky behaviours correlated with drinking.…”

Concurrent validity of the marijuana purchase task: a meta‐analysis of trait‐level cannabis demand and cannabis involvement

“…Most samples ( k = 12/15; 80%) were recruited in the United States and the remaining three (20%) in Canada. Six of 15 reports [10, 28, 31, 48, 49] included community young adult samples (i.e. 19.89–22.57 years old), two [26, 50] included adult samples recruited from the community, six additional [9, 19, 29, 51–53] included crowdsourced MTurk samples, and the remaining one included a clinical sample of HIV + cannabis users [20].…”

“…Cannabis problems were assessed by the Marijuana Consequences Questionnaire (MACQ) [48] and the Marijuana Problem Index (MPI) [9, 28]. With regard to the assessment of cannabis dependence severity, four studies used Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)‐IV/5 criteria [20, 29, 31, 53], and seven additional relied on the Cannabis Use Dependence Identification Test‐Revised (CUDIT) [19, 26, 48–52].…”

“…severity, four studies used Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV/5 criteria[20,29,31,53], and seven additional relied on the Cannabis Use Dependence Identification Test-Revised (CUDIT)[19,26,[48][49][50][51][52].The structural characteristics of MPTs varied substantially in terms of the number of prices (range = 7-22), units of purchase (hits/puffs, k = 6/15 reports; grams, k = 7/15; joints, k = 1/15; 0.1-oz cannabis units, k = 1/15), and maximum price per unit (range = $0-100). Except…”