Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Michael Croghan
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 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
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
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.
predicting marijuana use, however, and they believe it is important to study (Neighbors,
There are three hypotheses in this study. First, a positive correlation exists
between descriptive norms, injunctive norms, social expectancies and the frequency and
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
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
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
References
McCarthy, D. M., Lynch, A. M., Pedersen, S. L. (2007). Driving After Use of Alcohol
Neighbors, C., Geisner, I. M., Lee, C. M. (2008). Perceived Marijuana Norms and Social
database.