(PS6-D90) Dope to Cope: Cannabis Motives in Relation to Cannabis Demand and Cannabis Use Risk

According to behavioral economic theory, problematic cannabis use results from elevated reinforcing value (RV) of cannabis in relation to alternative reinforcers, despite adverse consequences. Motives, or the sought-after effects of a drug, may be the mechanism by which elevated demand is associated with cannabis use and associated problems. That is, individuals may use cannabis to obtain certain valued outcomes, effectively altering the RV of cannabis. No identified studies have examined the associations between cannabis demand, motives, and cannabis use risk among adolescents, who are at elevated risk for experiencing negative consequences from cannabis use. Participants (n=115) aged 15-18 (M_age=16.9, SD=0.9; 52% female) completed online measures: the marijuana purchase task (MPT), the Comprehensive Marijuana Motives Questionnaire (CMMQ), and the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test-Revised (CUDIT-R). Demand indices derived from the MPT loaded on to two factors; “amplitude” consisted of intensity (amount consumed at zero cost), O_max (maximum expenditure), and elasticity (rate at which consumption decreases as price increases), and “persistence” consisted of P_max (price at maximum expenditure) and breakpoint. Cannabis motives were mean scores from the following subscales: enjoyment (M=3.01, SD=0.97), conformity (M=0.50, SD=0.73), coping (M=1.35, SD=1.24), celebration (M=1.57, SD=1.12), altered perceptions (M=1.58, SD=1.21), anxiety reduction (M=0.94, SD=1.05), low perceived risk (M=1.32, SD=1.10), and sleep (M=.04, SD=1.05). Multiple linear regression was conducted to assess whether cannabis use motives aided in predicting risky cannabis use as measured by total scores on the CUDIT-R (M=9.98, SD=6.40). Age and birth sex were included in the first step and did not significantly contribute to cannabis risk scores. In step 2, amplitude and persistence accounted for an additional 12.7% of variance in CUDIT-R scores, F(2, 110)=7.35, p < .01. With every one-unit increase in amplitude, CUDIT-R score increased by 1.44 (t=2.51, p < .05); with every one-unit increase in persistence (reflecting lower demand due to negative factor loadings), CUDIT-R score decreased by 1.32 (t=-2.30, p < .05). In step 3, cannabis motive subscales accounted for an additional 32.2% of variance in CUDIT-R scores, F(2, 102)=3.67, p < .01. For every one-unit increase in coping, CUDIT-R scores increased by 1.70 (t=3.31, p < 0.01); in contrast, for everyone one-unit increase in conformity, CUDIT-R scores decreased by 1.52 (t=-2.00, p < .05). These findings suggest that cannabis use motives may help elucidate the relation between elevated cannabis demand and cannabis-related consequences. Consistent with previous research, conformity motives were not associated with increased cannabis-use risk, which may be attributable to sample characteristics (inclusion of light/infrequent users). However, prevention and intervention efforts targeting coping among adolescents may effectively reduce the RV of cannabis, which in turn may reduce risk for cannabis use problems, including cannabis user disorder. Future studies should continue to explore the role of cannabis motives among adolescents across use history.