Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1978, Vol. 46, No. 3, 470-477

A Longitudinal Study of the Personality Correlates of Marijuana Use Edwin J. Kay, Arthur Lyons, William Newman, Donald Mankin, and Roger C. Loeb Lehigh University Two hundred and fifty-one male students completed the California Psychological Inventory, the Adjective Check List, and a drug-use questionnaire in the fall of their freshman year and in each of one, two, or three succeeding springs. Three prevailing patterns of drug use were identified. Continuous nonusers never disclosed marijuana use; switched nonusers did not disclose marijuana use initially but did so on a later questionnaire, and users disclosed marijuana use both initially and later. Enduring differences between users and continuous nonusers were found. The switched nonusers generally had scores between those of the users and continuous nonusers. On several scales, switched nonusers were similar to users both before and after their use of marijuana. It is concluded that marijuana use, both present and future, can be predicted by a certain pattern of reported personality characteristics. A number of investigators have compared users and nonusers of marijuana on a variety of psychosocial and personality measures. Several (Brill & Christie, 1974; McAree, Steffenhagen, & Zheutlin, 1972; Richek, Angle, McAdams, & D'Angelo, 1975) have found few or no significant differences between the two groups. In other cases (Grossman, Goldstein, & Eisenman, 1974; Zinberg & Weil, 1970), group differences have been found only when marijuana use was chronic. However, many researchers have reported significant differences between users and nonusers (Cunningham, Cunningham, & English, 1974; Fisher, 1974; Graham & Cross, 1975; Hogan, Mankin, Conway, & Fox, 1970; Jessor, Jessor, & Finney, 1973; McLaughlin, 1974; Simon, Primavera, Simon, & Orndoff, 1974). The great majority This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant R01DA0054. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions. Arthur Lyons is now at Moravian College, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Donald Mankin is now at the University of Houston at Clear Lake City, Houston, Texas. Requests for reprints should be sent to Edwin J. Kay, Department of Psychology, Chandlcr-Ullmann Hall •#17, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015.

of the studies cited above have used data collected at one testing only and thus do not show whether the personality differences sometimes found were antecedent or consequent to marijuana use. In addition, they could provide no information on the consistency of the measures over time and on the characteristics of individuals who change their patterns of drug use. Two studies (Brill & Christie, 1974; Jessor et al., 1973) did contain a longitudinal design. Brill and Christie found only slight differences between users and nonusers and therefore did not report longitudinal data. In the Jessor et al. (1973) study, high school students were classified into one of three groups: nonusers of marijuana initially and a year later (NU-NU); nonusers of marijuana initially who became users of marijuana 1 year later (NU-U); and users initially and 1 year later (U). On a number of personality measures, the NU-U subjects initially fell between the NU-NU and U groups, differing significantly from NU-NU subjects on a number of dimensions. For the NU-NU subjects there were no significant changes over time. In contrast, for the NU-U subjects there were significant changes in which they became more similar to the U

Copyright 1978 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-006X/78/4603-0470$00.75 470

PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF MARIJUANA USE

subjects on numerous measures. In summary, high school respondents who switched from nonuse to use of marijuana were initially between nonusers and users, and they became more like users over time. Jessor et al. also included a sample of college students in their study, but unfortunately they did not collect longitudinal data on these subjects. The present study is a modified replication of Hogan et al. (1970) in that the subjects were from Lehigh University and some of the same personality measures were used. In that study, users and nonusers differed on such measures as socialization, flexibility, and empathy. The addition of a longitudinal design (similar to that of Jessor et al., 1973) makes it possible to assess the consistency of the reported differences in characteristics of users and nonusers over time and to check for personality characteristics and changes in nonusers who became users. Concurrent validity could also be evaluated, since more than one personality measure was used. Method Subjects Each fall during the years 1971, 1972, 1973, 200 randomly chosen male freshmen entering Lehigh University were solicited for voluntary participation. The various groups of students were then contacted for follow-up studies in the spring following initial contact and for successive springs up to and including the spring of 1974. Thus, freshmen entering in the fall of 1971 were contacted then and in the springs of 1972, 1973, and 1974; freshmen entering in the fall of 1972 were contacted then and in the springs of 1973 and 1974; freshmen entering in the fall of 1973 were contacted then and in the spring of 1974. Initially, 130 (65%) of the 200 students who were contacted in the fall of 1971 agreed to be in the study; the corresponding numbers of freshmen entering in the fall of 1972 and 1973 were 124 (62%) and 112 (56%), respectively. The numbers of students participating in the initial testing and all follow-up testing were 68, 85, and 98 for the freshmen entering in the fall of 1971, 1972, and 1973, respectively. Each subject was paid for each testing session in which he participated. The problem of subject loss is attributable to several factors. First, only students remaining at Lehigh for the duration of the research (1-3 years) were included in the final samples. Second, among students remaining at Lehigh, some could not be located during the testing weeks. And third, some students who were contacted were unwilling or unable to participate in all testing sessions. This resulted in the following percentages of original volunteers completing all testing sessions:

471

52% of those entering in 1971, 69% entering in 1972, and 87% entering in 1973. These figures are similar to other longitudinal research in the area (Brill & Christie, 1974; Jessor et al., 1973).

Procedure For each test session, the subjects completed three instruments: a drug questionnaire (including demographic as well as drug use information); the Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1965); and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1964). Subjects reported varying levels of marijuana use, and a small minority reported the use of other illegal drugs. The clearest distinction among subjects was whether or not any marijuana use was disclosed for a given test session. Results

The analyses reported below are only for those subjects who participated in all of the appropriate testing sessions of the experiment. According to their responses on the various administrations of the drug questionnaire, the subjects were assigned to one of four categories. A subject was categorized as a continuous nonuser (CNU) if he did not disclose use of marijuana on any administration of the drug questionnaire. A subject was categorized as a user (U) if he disclosed use of marijuana on the initial administration of the drug questionnaire. A subject was categorized as a switched nonuser (SNU) if he did not disclose marijuana use at the initial administration of the drug questionnaire but did disclose such use on some subsequent administration of the drug questionnaire. No subjects were found in the fourth possible category, switched user (disclosure of marijuana use on the initial administration of the drug questionnaire but denial of marijuana use on later questionnaires). Replication of Hogan et al. Our first aim was to see if our data replicated the study of Hogan et al. (1970), who administered the CPI to comparable subjects. Table 1 shows the raw score means on the CPI scales for U and CNU subjects for various administrations of the test. The data from the fall and first spring are for subjects who participated in the experiment for 1, 2, or 3 years; the data from the second spring are for those subjects who participated in the experiment for 2 or 3

KAY, LYONS, NEWMAN, MANKIN, AND LOEB

472

Table 1 Mean Responses on the California Psychological Inventory Scales for User (U) and Continuous Nonuser (CNU) Subjects Time of administration Fall Scale Dominance Capacity for Status Sociability Social Presence Self-acceptance Well-Being Responsibility Socialization Self-control Tolerance Good Impression Communality Achievement via Conformance Achievement via Independence Intellectual Efficiency Psychological-mindedness Flexibility Femininity Note, *p ** p ***p

2nd spring

1st spring

3rd spring

U (78)

CNU (115)

U (78)

CNU (115)

U (38)

CNU (68)

U (12)

CNU (27)

25.3 17.6 23.9 37.4 21.8 32.6 25.0 33.7 23.0 18.9 12.9 24.1

24.2 17.2 22.1** 33.4*** 20.6* 33.4 28.1*** 38.0*** 27.3*** 24.3

26.4 18.7 24.1 39.5 21.9 32.8 25.3 32.8 22.5 20.4 13.6 23.1

26.0 17.4* 22.6 35.6*** 21.5 33.9 28.1*** 37.7*** 26.4*** 20.1 14.3 24.7***

26.3 18.8 24.3 39.0 21.6 31.7 25.3 31.7 22.0 20.2 13.6 23.0

27.6 18.7 24.0 36.1* 21.4 33.3 28.6*** 36.8*** 27.1*** 20.7 15.6 23.6

24.9 20.4 25.5 41.6 21.9 33.2 24.7 30.2 24.1 22.4 13.8 23.8

28.4 18.5 24.7 36.2* 21.8 33.0 28.8* 37.1*** 27.0 20.5 15.2 24.0

22.8

26.1***

23.4

26.5***

23.2

26.9***

24.1

26.1

19.1 35.6 11.7 12.7 16.7

19.4 36.6 11.4 9.8***

19.5 37.0 11.6 12.7 15.7

19.8 37.1 11.8 10.2*** 16.7

20.3 36.7 10.8 13.8 16.9

20.2

37.9 11.9 10.7*** 17.0

22.3 39.1 12.2 14.3 16.2

20.2 38.1 12.0 10.9** 17.6

19.4 15.2***

17.5

Asterisks indicate significant tests between U and CNU means. Numbers in parentheses are ns. < .05. < .025. < .01.

Table 2 Mean Scores of User ( U ) , Switched Nonuser (SNU), and Continuous Nonuser (CNU) SelectedCalifornia Psychological Inventory Scales

Subjects for

Time of administration Fall Scale Social Presence Responsibility Socialization Self-control Achievement via Conformance Flexibility

U (78)

SNU (58)

37.4 25.0* 33.7** 23.0

37.3

1st spring

CNU (115)

U (78)

33.4** 27.5 28.1 37.2 38.0 26.0 27.3

22.8** 26.0 26.1 12.7 11.1 9.8

2nd spring

3rd spring SNU CNU (29) (27)

SNU CNU (58) (115)

U SNU CNU (38) (47) (68)

U (12)

39.5 25.3 32.8* 22.5

36.7 26.6 35.6 25.2

35.6 28.1 37.7 26.4

39.0 25.3 31.7 22.0

38.0 26.7 34.4 25.0

36.1 28.1 36.8 27.1

41.6 24.7 30.2** 24.1

39.4 26.3 36.5 26.5

36.2 28.8 37.1 27.0

23.4 12.7

24.6 11.6

26.5 10.2*

23.2 13.8

24.9 12.9

26.9 10.7

24.1 14.3

27.2 14.0

26.1 10.9*

Note. Asterisks next to scores indicate significant t tests when compared to SNU means. Numbers in parentheses are res. * p < .05. **p < .01.

PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF MARIJUANA USE

years; and the data from the third spring are for those subjects who participated in the experiment for 3 years (i.e., those who entered Lehigh in 1971). If the four drug use categories of Hogan et al. (frequent users, occasional users, nonusers, and principled nonusers) are collapsed into two categories (users and nonusers), then their Table 3 data can be compared with our fall data. The comparison indicates that the results of our initial fall testing closely replicated Hogan et al. Furthermore, the pattern of results endured over time as assessed by our three retests. Differences that both replicated Hogan et al. and endured over time occurred on six scales. Compared to CNU subjects, U subjects were significantly higher in Social Presence and Flexibility and lower on Responsibility, Socialization, Selfcontrol, and Achievement via Conformance.

473

In Table 2, we present the mean CPI scores for all three categories of subjects on the six scales that consistently differentiated U and CNU subjects over time. SNU subjects generally fell between scores of U and CNU subjects. They were consistently similar to U subjects on the Social Presence scale and similar to CNU subjects in the Socialization, Self-control, and Achievement via Conformance scales. SNU subjects shifted on only one CPI scale; over time they came to resemble the U subjects on Flexibility. Adjective Check List The mean responses on the ACL by U and CNU subjects for various administrations of the test are presented in Table 3. Again the t test was used to compare the scale means for

Table 3 Mean Responses on the Adjective Check List Scales for User (U) and Continuous Nonuser (CNU) Subjects Time of administration Fall

1st spring

2nd spring

3rd spring

Scale

U (78)

CNU (115)

U (78)

CNU (115)

U (38)

CNU (68)

U (12)

CNU (27)

No. adjectives checked Defensiveness Favorable adjectives checked Unfavorable adjectives checked Self-confidence Self-control Lability Personal Adjustment Achievement Dominance Endurance Order Introception Nurturance Affiliation Heterosexuality Exhibition Autonomy Aggression Change Succorance Abasement Deference Counseling Readiness

49.4 48.8 47.0 51.7 46.2 44.9 S4.9 46.6 48.2 48.8 47.2 46.6 50.3 49.1 48.4 53.1 50.0 51.8 49.6 51.6 48.3 49.1 47.2 50.2

49.4 50.9 48.4 50.2 44.4 50.8** 49.6** 49.0* 51.9** 48.8 53.0** 53.5** 51.8 49.2 48.1 45.6** 45.1** 47.3** 47.0 45.3** 49.3 51.9 52.5** 53.5

50.8 49.1 47.6 51.6 46.7 44.0 56.6 45.8 49.0 50.6 47.3 46.4 50.4 48.6 48.7 54.0 51.7 53.7 51.5 53.6 46.5 47.2 45.3 49.0

51.2 51.0 49.8 50.4 45.3 51.6** 49.9** 49.9** 52.4* 48.9 53.0** 54.0** 51.7 50.4 50.1 46.9** 45.7** 47.6** 46.5** 46.5** 48.2 50.8** 51.9** 52.3

51.6 48.5 46.1 51.6 46.1 45.5 57.6 4S.8 47.3 48.4 46.6 46.6 50.6 49.1 47.7 51.9 51.4 53.4 49.8 52.6 47.9 48.0 47.2 50.1

50.8 51.0 50.7* 49.6 46.4 50.4** 51.3** 49.7* 52.2* 49.5 52.5** 53.8** 54.6 51.1 49.5 50.4 47.6 48.1** 46.8 46.7** 47.7 50.6 52.2* 51.4

50.7 46.9 45.5 51.7 40.5 45.2 58.5 42.5 44.5 45.7 45.9 44.2 49.8 50.3 47.8 53.6 50.5 50.8 48.4 54.2 50.1 51.5 49.2 53.5

55.1 50.5 50.8 48.1 44.6 50.9 49.7** 52.3** 50.6 48.7 51.3 53.7** 56.6* 53.1 49.0 50.4 44.6 46.7 45.3 44.4** 46.1 51.0 53.6 53.4

Note. Asterisks indicate significant t tests between U and CNU means. Numbers in parentheses are »s. * p < .05. **p < .01.

KAY, LYONS, NEWMAN, MANKIN, AND LOEB

474

U and GNU subjects. On the initial administration, U and GNU subjects differed significantly at the .01 level on 10 of the 25 scales; for one scale the difference was significant at the .05 level. Users were significantly higher than GNU subjects on Lability, Heterosexuality, Exhibition, and Change. GNU subjects were significantly higher than U subjects on Self-control, Personal Adjustment, Achievement, Endurance, Order, Autonomy, and Deference. In examining Table 3, we see that the original differences on these 11 scales held up consistently over the 3 years of the study. In the spring of the third year, the magnitude of the differences was the same, although some differences were not statistically significant. Only subjects who entered school in the fall of 1971 were measured in the spring of the third year; this drop in sample size substantially reduced the power of the statistical test. Nonetheless, it is impressive that 2^ years after the first test, the direction of the differences remained the same. The data for the 11 AGL scales for the SNU subjects as compared to U and GNU subjects are presented in Table 4. For the first two test

sessions, with only one exception (Personal Adjustment for first spring), SNU subjects fell between U and GNU subjects on these 11 scales. However, in the last two test sessions, this pattern did not occur. Thus, the differences among the three groups on the 11 scales changed over time. A careful examination of Table 4 reveals a fairly consistent pattern. Over time, many of the ACL scale scores of the SNU subjects become more like those of the U subjects. The shift from similarity with GNU subjects to similarity with U subjects is clear on the following scales: Socialization through Conformity, Lability, Autonomy, and Change. However, on the Order, Heterosexuality, and Exhibition scales, the SNU subjects were consistently similar to U subjects. Finally, to assess concurrent validity, we hypothesized that the significant differences found between U and GNU subjects would be in the same direction for the CPI and the AGL when the two scales are positively correlated (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) and in opposite directions when the two scales are negatively correlated. Fifty-eight of the 66 possible cases supported this hypothesis; that is, the CPI and ACL scores were in the predicted direction.

Table 4 Mean Scores of User (U), Switched Nonuser ( S N U ) , and Continuous Nonuser (CNU) Subjects for Selected Adjective Check List Scales Time of administration Fall Scale Self-control Lability Personal Adjustment Achievement Endurance Order Heterosexuality Exhibition Autonomy Change Deference

U (78)

SNU (58)

1st spring CNU (115)

44.9** 48.5 50.8 54.9"

50.3 49.6

46.4 48.2 47.2 46.6 53.1 50.0 51.8 51.6* 47.2

47.1 50.7 50.5 49.1 52.1 48.8 48.4 46.6 50.2

49.0 51.9 53.0

53.5** 45.6** 45.1** 47.3 45.3 52.5

U (78)

SNU (58)

CNU (115)

44.0 56.6

47.1 51.6 53.3 49.9

48.8 49.0 47.3

49.9 52.4 53.0 54.0

46.9 50.2 49.8 46.4* 50.7 54.0 52.2 50.3 51.7 53.7** 49.6 53.6 48.0 45.3** 49.1

46.9** 45.7 47.6 46.5 51.9

2nd spring U SNU (38) (47)

CNU (68)

45.5 44.6 50.4* 57.6 54.4 51.3 46.8 47.3 46.6 46.6 51.9 51.4 53.4 52.6 47.2

42.4 48.0 46.0 46.6 52.5 52.9 54.0 48.8 45.5

49.7* 52.2

52.5** 53.8** 50.4 47.6

48.1** 46.7

52.2*

3rd spring U (12)

45.2 58.5

SNU CNU (29) (27)

45.2 50.9 58.9 49.7

42.5** 48.2 52.3 44.5** 52.7 50.6 45.9 44.2 53.6 50.5 50.8 54.2 49.2

49.1 46.7 57.7 56.9 56.2 54.0 43.2

51.3

53.7* 50.4

44.6* 46.7* 44.4* 53.6*

Note. Asterisks next to scores indicate significant I tests when compared to SNU means. Numbers in parentheses are ns. *p < .05. ** p < .01.

PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF MARIJUANA USE

The probability of finding this amount of agreement by chance is extremely low (p < ,001). Furthermore, on the correlations between CPI and ACL scores, 32 of the 58 correlations in agreement with our hypothesis were significant, whereas none of the 8 cases in disagreement with our hypothesis was significant.

475

Conformity among nonusers is also reflected on the ACL scales of Deference, Order, and Self-control. On the other hand, the individuality and lack of conformity of the user is evidenced in high ACL scores on Autonomy, Change, Exhibition, and Lability. The second distinguishing personality cluster is related to the issue of socialization and conformity. It is a set of characteristics that increases the likelihood of success through Discussion conventional means. Nonusers are relatively high in Achievement through Conformance Comparing our data to those of Hogan et al. on the CPI. This scale indicates efficiency, (1970), we are impressed that the personality organization, and industriousness. Similarly, correlates of marijuana use among the reputon the ACL, nonusers were higher on Achieveedly "straight," apathetic, job-oriented college ment and Endurance (persistence). They also youth of the early 1970s are strikingly similar demonstrated a more positive attitude toward to the personality correlates associated with their place in society by their superior scores marijuana use among the "hippie" activist on Personal Adjustment. college youth of the late 1960s. Although the The third cluster of traits involves adventure present sample of college males at a relatively seeking. On the CPI, users evinced more small and conservative university is not likely spontaneity (measured by Social Presence) to be representative of American youth, the and adventuresomeness (Flexibility). Simisubjects are probably similar to a large numlarly, users appeared high on adventure ber of college students. This successful replica(Heterosexuality) and seeking novelty tion of Hogan et al. provides support for the (Change) according to the ACL. findings of both studies and implies that the In summary, nonusers appear to be well personality patterns associated with marijuana socialized. They conform to norms, respect use and nonuse have not changed significantly authority, strive for traditional goals, and over the years. rarely act on impulse. Users show a strikingly The consistency between studies and the different picture. They are nonconforming, consistency across measures and across years independent, adventurous, and spontaneous. (at least on the CPI) within our study suggests This pattern generally supports contemporary that certain people with specifiable personality myths about college-age drug users and nonpatterns fall into our three categories of conusers. It should be remembered that these data tinued nonusers, users, and switched nonusers. are based on self-report measures; that is, The distinction between users and nonusers is they tell us how the subjects perceive, or claim clearest in three personality clusters. First, to perceive, themselves. Thus, marijuana users nonusers tend to be higher in several indices and nonusers may in part be reflecting social of what might be labeled conformity. On the expectations. How their self-perceptions relate CPI, nonusers had high scores on three of the to others' perceptions or to reality (however group of scales described by Gough as "meait is defined) has not been assessed. sures of socialization, maturity, responsibility, At any rate, that users and nonusers reliably and intrapersonal structuring of values" (1964, report self-perceptions that sharply differ is p. 10). These three scales (Responsibility, both interesting and potentially useful. The Socialization, and Self-control) all reflect a usefulness of these data becomes clearer when concern with social standards. The low scores we examine the third group, the switched of the drug users reflect relative irresponsinonusers. It is noteworthy that approximately bility, rebelliousness, and hostility to rules and 90% of the SNU subjects had switched to conventions compared to nonusers. It is interesting to note that even nonusers in our sample marijuana use by the second spring testing. scored below Cough's (1964) male norms on Thus, the data in the last two testings reflect two (Responsibility, Self-control) of the scales. postmarijuana use personality characteristics.

476

KAY, LYONS, NEWMAN, MANKIN, AND LOEB

In general, this group fell between the users and the continuous nonusers on the various personality scales; this outcome replicates the study by Jessor et al. (1973). If we are interested in predicting which nonusers have the greatest chance of becoming users, there are several CPI and - ACL scales that appear to be useful. Specifically, if SNU subjects show certain personality characteristics similar to U subjects (and dissimilar to CNU subjects) both before and after their drug use, those characteristics can be used as predictors of future drug use. SNU subjects were consistently similar to U subjects on the Social Presence scale of the CPI and on the Order, Heterosexuality, and Exhibition scales of the ACL. The SNU group can thus be described as consistently similar to the U group in being outgoing, socially self-confident, and spontaneous. One might say that the "extraverted personality" is susceptible to the use of marijuana. Several studies have reported findings that support the conclusion that marijuana users are extraverts. Hogan et al. (1970) described the marijuana user as high in social poise (though this was offset by an "assertive nonconformity"). According to Brill & Christie (1974), marijuana users reported themselves as higher in the tendency to seek stimulation. Simon et al. (1974) reported users to be low in deference and order. Graham and Cross (1975) found that users value feelings and experience over planning and logic, an interpersonal responsiveness that seems to characterize our switched nonusers. On the other hand, SNU subjects shifted from similarity with CNU subjects to similarity with U subjects on the Flexibility scale of the CPI, and on the Socialization through Conformity, Lability, Autonomy, and Change scales of the ACL. This second cluster of personality traits involving nonconformity, lack of responsibility, and change is reflected in most of the literature on drug users (e.g., Cunningham et al., 1974; Grossman et al., 1974; Hogan et al., 1970; Simon et al., 1974; Zinberg & Weil, 1970). However, these studies only compared users with nonusers. Thus, the characteristics that SNU subjects shared with U subjects after they started using marijuana appear to be excellent post hoc discriminators;

they are not useful in discriminating nonusers who later become users from nonusers who continue not to use marijuana. Two final points relate to the personality tests. First, contrary to the claims of some critics of the CPI, this longitudinal study found little evidence of shifts in personality results in conjunction with changes in drug use. Our SNU subjects changed on only one CPI scale—Flexibility. This supports our earlier contention that a certain personality type may be recruitable to marijuana use rather than the typical interpretation that marijuana use results in personality changes. The second point is that in contrast to the consistency of the CPI scores, some ACL scores did shift among SNU subjects. On the ACL, SNU subjects demonstrated a trend over time toward similarity to users. As the ACL was developed to assess self-concept, this difference may imply that SNU subjects are experiencing and reporting changes in their self-concepts. Following their participation in marijuana use, the SNU subjects developed a self-concept of themselves similar to marijuana users. This change is not reflected in personality trait modifications as measured by the CPI. Perhaps such situational influences as drug use and associated environmental conditions have impact on ACL-type self-concept without resulting in changed perceptions of personality characteristics measured by the CPI. References Brill, N. Q., & Christie, R. L. Marihuana use and psychosocial adaptation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1974, 31, 713-719. Cunningham, W. H., Cunningham, I. C. M., & English, W. D. Sociopsychological characteristics of undergraduate marijuana users. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1974, 125, 3-12. Fisher, G. Milieu of marihuana use. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 1974, 20, 4S-SS. Gough, H. G. Manual for the California Psychological Inventory (Rev. ed.). Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1964. Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. The Adjective Check List manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965. Graham, D. L., & Cross, W. C. Values and attitudes of high school drug users. Journal of Drug Education, 1975, 5, 97-107. Grossman, J. C., Goldstein, R., & Eisenman, R. Undergraduate marijuana and drug use as related to openness of experience. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1974, 48, 86-92.

PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF MARIJUANA USE Hogan, R., Mankin, D., Conway, J., & Fox, S. Personality correlates of undergraduate marijuana use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 35, 58-73. Jessor, R., Jessor, S., & Finney, J. A social psychology of marijuana use: Longitudinal studies of high school and college youth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26, 1-15. McAree, C. P., Steffenhagen, R. A., & Zheutlin, L. S. Personality factors and patterns of drug usage in college students. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1972, 128, 890-893. McLaughlin, J. F. Selected personality characteristics of the moderate marijuana, heavy marijuana, and poly-drug-using marijuana smoker. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Montana, 1973). Dissertation

477

Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 3881A. (University Microfilms No. 74-1390). Richek, H. G., Angle, J. F., McAdams, W. S., & D'Angelo, J. Personality/mental health correlates of drug use by high school students. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1975, 160, 43S-442. Simon, W. E., Primavera, L. H., Simon, M. G., & Orndoff, R. K. A comparison of marijuana users and nonusers on a number of personality variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 917-918. Zinberg, N. E., & Weil, A. T. A comparison of marijuana users and nonusers. Nature, 1970, 226, 119-123. Received April 4, 1977 •

A longitudinal study of the personality correlates of marijuana use.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1978, Vol. 46, No. 3, 470-477 A Longitudinal Study of the Personality Correlates of Marijuana Use Edwin...
581KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views