The present research examined the impact of cannabis motives on tobacco outcomes.
The sample included 403 daily smokers (214 males; mean age, 35.24 y). A bifactor model of cannabis motives was examined to determine whether this approach might best elucidate relations between cannabis motives and smoking.
Coping motives were associated with reduced barriers for smoking, fewer negative smoking expectancies, and decreased positive reinforcement with respect to smoking. Conformity motives were associated with fewer internal smoking barriers. Expansion motives were associated with more positive reinforcement related to smoking. Enhancement motives were associated with reductions in smoking for appetite/weight control consequences. The general motives variable, comprised of each of the 5 motives subscales, was associated with more barriers related to tobacco addiction, more external barriers, greater positive reinforcement consequences, and more negative expectancies. Coping motives were negatively associated with quit status, and were positively associated with quit status.
Cannabis motives subscales were not uniformly predictive of quit success. Individuals who used cannabis for conformity reasons were more likely to successfully quit smoking; however, individuals who used cannabis for coping reasons were less likely to quit smoking. Thus, those who use cannabis for conformity reasons are less likely to turn to cannabis during times of stress or to relieve tension or anxiety, a view supported by existing literature. This suggests that individuals who use cannabis for coping reasons may represent a population vulnerable to cannabis misuse and problems. Additional work is needed to better understand underlying mechanisms.
*Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT
†Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
‡Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, TX
D.W.F. and N.P.A. drafted the manuscript. M.J.Z. and N.B.S. conceptualized theoretical bases of the grant and provided guidance and feedback to manuscript drafts. All authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.
Supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant R01 MH076629-01 (M.J.Z. and N.B.S.). In addition, preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant K12-DA-000167 (D.W.F.). NIMH and NIDA had no direct role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. The contents of this manuscript do not necessarily represent the policy of the NIMH or NIDA, and as such, endorsement by the Federal Government should not be assumed.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Reprints: Dawn W. Foster, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06519 (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).