Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
The International Journal of the Addictions, 14(7), 977-986, 1979
Beliefs among College Students on Settings and Emotions Conducive to Alcohol and Marijuana Use James A. Russell" Catherine R. Bond Department of Psychology The University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbis V6T I W5, Canada
Abstract
Two hundred college student alcohol and marijuana users rated their desire to drink alcohol and desire to smoke marijuana in or after different settings shown via color photographic slides. Contrary to the compensation hypothesis (that these drugs are used to escape from unpleasant circumstances), desire for both alcohol and marijuana was greater both in and after more pleasant settings than unpleasant ones. These results were more consistent with an amplification hypothesis, that alcohol and marijuana intensify emotions already present. It is a common notion that one reason a person will use drugs, including alcohol and marijuana, is to alter his emotional state (mood, *TOwhom requests for reprints should be addressed 971
Copyright @ 1979 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Neither this work nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
978
RUSSELL AND BOND
feeling, or affect). According to the compensation hypothesis, alcohol and marijuana increase pleasure and are thus used to compensate for displeasure. An unpleasant mood or setting is therefore conducive to their use. According to the amplijication hypothesis, alcohol and marijuana do not necessarily increase a person’s level of pleasure, but rather amplify whatever emotion he is already feeling. An unpleasant mood or setting would thus discourage their use since the displeasure would only be thereby intensified. Only a few studies have been directly concerned with the effects of mood or setting on drug use. Nathan et al., (1971) found that alcoholics drank more in their typical hospital ward environment than in a redecorated, presumably more pleasant ward that included a bar and bartender. These results support the compensation hypothesis-at least for alcoholics. Conflicting findings were obtained among studies of college student drinkers. In accord with the amplification hypothesis, McClelland et al., (1972) found more drinking in a more pleasant setting. But, in accord with the compensation hypothesis, Higgins (1973) found more drinking in an unpleasant, “threat” condition (one involving the threat of a subsequent personal evaluation by strangers) than in a “no-threat’’ control condition. Finally, Higgins and Marlatt (1973) found no difference in alcohol consumption between subjects in a “threat” (of electric shock) condition and those in a “no-threat” control condition. Recent studies have suggested the importance of users’ beliefs regarding the relationship between their emotional state (as, say, induced by the setting) and their desire for and use of alcohol or marijuana. These studies have found that regular marijuana users were generally unable to distinguish marijuana in commonly used dosages from a placebo or to distinguish among the effects of marijuana of different strengths (Cappell et al., 1973; Cappell and Pliner, 1974; Jones, 1971; Jones and Stone, 1970). Thus, for commonly used dosages, the effects of marijuana may be more attributable to the user’s beliefs or expectations than to the drug itself. Tart (1971) surveyed the beliefs of marijuana users regarding their emotional reactions to marijuana and found some agreement with a statement of the amplification hypothesis: “Whatever mood I was in before turning on becomes greatly amplified” (p. 181). But he found even more agreement with a statement of the compensation hypothesis: “I almost invariably feel good when I turn on, regardless of whether I felt bad before turning on” (p. 181). Fisher and Steckler (1974) also found evidence for belief in both hypotheses and, interestingly, found that belief in the compensation hypothesis was positively correlated with frequency
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
BELIEFS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
979
of marijuana use. Studies have typically found that alcoholics and heavy users believe that alcohol improves their emotional state (Blume and Sheppard, 1967; Mayfield, 1968; McNamee et al., 1968; Mendelson et al., 1964; Vannicelli, 1972). Ludwig and Stark (1974) specifically studied alcoholics’ beliefs regarding emotions and situations that could cause their craving for alcohol. “In general, alcoholics are more likely to experience craving when they feel anxious, worried, depressed, lonesome or bored” (p. 902). For example, 93.3% of their sample said they would crave alcohol when depressed, but only 23.3% would crave alcohol when feeling good. Taken together, these studies indicate that most alcoholics favor the compensation hypothesis over the amplification hypothesis, a result that agrees with Nathan et al’s. (1971) finding that alcoholics behave according , to the compensation hypothesis. Russell and Mehrabian (1976) asked a small sample of college stydent drinkers to rate what their desire for alcohol would be after experiencing each of 12 different settings (shown to subjects through photographic slides) that varied in their affective quality. Subjects believed that they would desire more alcohol after having been in unpleasant than in pleasant places. Unfortunately, the desire for alcohol was confounded in this study with the subjects’ imagined drinking situation. One goal of the present study was to replicate these results without such a confounding. In the present study, 90 color photographic slides were used to represent a wide variety of settings. Both compensation and amplification hypotheses predict (although in opposite directions) that the emotional quality of the setting in which a person finds himself will influence his desire for alcohol and marijuana. Studies in environmental psychology provide a description of the emotional quality of settings that may therefore be useful to drug researchers. Mehrabian and Russell (1974) hypothesized three dimensions of the emotional or affective quality of places-pleasantness, arousing quality, and dominance-eliciting qualityand the slides were thus selected for this study such that these three dimensions formed orthogonal independent variables. Subjects rated their desire to drink alcohol and desire to smoke marijuana-one half of the subjects while in the setting (During condition), the other half after having been in the setting (After condition). The During condition was introduced to avoid the problem of confounding the desire to drink or to smoke with an imagined drinking situation and to assess beliefs regarding settings conducive to drug use. The After condition was included to emphasize the emotional state created by a
RUSSELL AND BOND
980
setting over the setting itself and thus to assess beliefs regarding emotions conducive to drug use.
METHOD
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
Subjects
Two hundred University of British Columbia undergraduates (125 males and 75 females) who had used both alcohol and marijuana, each a minimum of six times, volunteered to participate anonymously in this study. From self-report data, their mean number of alcoholic drinks per week was 4.96 (SD = 3.14); their mean number of marijuana cigarettes per week was 2.12 (SD = 2.45). Materials
Russell and Mehrabian (1976) developed a set of 320 color photographic slides, each of a different physical setting. A diversity of scenes were included in the set: urban, suburban, rural, and wilderness areas; various climates; interiors and exteriors of buildings; scenes with or without persons; and scenes from various countries. The settings also differed in their emotion-eliciting qualities; in particular, all possible combinations of pleasantness, arousing quality, and dominance-eliciting quality were included. These qualities had been assessed by verbal ratings from subjects not included in the present experiment. Evidence of the reliability and validity of these ratings was provided by Russell and Mehrabian (1976). From this pool of 320 slides, 90 were selected for use as stimuli in this study. To minimize the effects of the specific content of the slides and to better concentrate on the emotion-eliciting qualities of the settings, five slides were selected irrespective of content to form each cell of a factorial design in which three levels of pleasantness, three levels of arousing quality, and two levels of dominance-eliciting quality were completely crossed. In other words, there were 18 cells (3 x 3 x 2) with five replications per cell. Procedure
Subjects were brought together in groups ranging from two to twenty to view the slides. Subjects first responded to a questionnaire concerning
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
BELIEFS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
981
their prior alcohol and marijuana use. Written instructions then informed each subject of the general procedure, and the first slide was shown. Written instructions asked each subject to imagine that he was actually in the setting shown and, especially, to imagine his mood there. A randomly selected half of the subjects (the During group) were asked to imagine “that you are in the place shown in the slide for one hour.” The other half of the subjects (the After group) were asked to imagine “that you were in the place shown in the slide for an hour. Now, you have left the placebut are still in the mood created there. Answer the following questions for the one hour just after you have left the place.” Each subject then responded to a series of questions, the dependent measures of the study, presented in Table 1. When each subject had completed his rating form, he was told that this procedure would be repeated again exactly as before, except that a Table 1 Questionnaire Measure of Desire to Drink Alcohol and Desire to Smoke Mar&anan The questions concerning alcohol were: 1. (+) How much would you feel like having a drink (something alcoholic)
during this hour? Do you think that, “It’s just nor the right time to have an alcoholic drink”? 3. (+) How intoxicated would you like to be? (with alcohol) 4. (+) How many alcoholic drinks would you like to have during this hour? (A drink is either a 4-ounce glass of wine, a 12-ounce glass of beer, or a It-ounce glass of hard liquor). Circle one:
2. (-)
The questions concerning marijuana were: 5. (+-) How much would you feel like smoking marijuana? (Ignore legal problems. In other words, assume you would be safe from police.) 6. (-) Do you think that “It’s just nor the right time to smoke marijuana”? 7. (+) How intoxicated (stoned) would you like to be? (with marijuana) 8. (+) How many joints of medium potency marijuana would you like to smoke? Circle one: 0
4
1
1
4
2
2
4
3
3
4
4
“On the actual rating form, the plus and minus scoring keys of the items were omitted. A wore on a negatively keyed item was computed by reversing the sign on the response to the item. Items were answered on an eight-point rating scale ranging from “not at all” to “extremely so,” except for Questions 2 and 8, which concerned quantity and which were answered on the nine-point scales shown. Items were presented to subjects in the order shown.
RUSSELL AND BOND
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
982
different setting would be shown. A total of 18 slides were shown to each group of subjects in this manner. There were five such sets of 18 slides, each set constituting a randomly ordered replication of the factorial design. Subjects were randomly assigned to replication and responded to one of two counterbalanced orders of presentation. In other words, the design was within-subject for the three factors of emotional quality of the setting but between-subject for the during-after factor, the five replications, and the order of presentation. After viewing the 18 slides, each subject completed Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) verbal, self-report measures of trait-pleasure, traitarousal, and trait-dominance. These three scales assess individual differences in characteristic, general emotional levels.
RESULTS Dependent Measures
Intercorrelations among the four items concerning desire for alcohol (Table 1) ranged from -49 to 238; among the four items concerning desire for marijuana, intercorrelations ranged from .52 to .93. Both sets of correlations were adequate and, moreover, separate analyses of variance showed similar results for each alcohol item and for each marijuana item. Therefore, scores on items were standardized and then summed to form composite desire-for-alcohol and desire-for-marijuana measures. In turn, these two measures were found to correlate .47. Independent Variables
Analysis of variance showed that there were two significant main effects for desire for alcohol: setting pleasantness, F (2, 8) = 16.2, p < .01, and setting dominance-eliciting quality, F(1, 4) = 7.82, p < .05. Cell means showed that desire for alcohol was greatest in (and after) the most pleasant settings and was least in the least pleasant settings; t-tests showed that each of the three cell means differed significantly ( p < .01) from each other. Cell means showed that desire for alcohol was greater in (and after) dominance-eliciting settings than submissiveness-elicitingones. There was one significant interaction effect: During-After x Dominance-eliciting Quality, F (1,4) = 12.59,p < .05. Cell means showed that the main effect due to dominance noted above was larger in the During than in the After
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
BELIEFS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
983
condition. In other words, whereas a subject’s desire for alcohol was affected by the dominance-eliciting quality of a setting even after he had left it, he was affected to a greater extent while still within the setting. There were no further significant effects concerning alcohol. The arousing quality of the setting had no significant effect on the desire to drink. The lack of other interaction effects indicates, for example, that the inhibiting effect on drinking due to an unpleasant setting remained even after the person had left the setting (presumably, provided he was still in the mood created there). The results for desire for marijuana were quite simple: a single, significant main effect in which desire for marijuana was greatest in (and after) more pleasant settings, F (2, 8) = 25.88, p < .01. No other main or interactive effects approached significance. Cell means showed that, as in the case of alcohol, desire for marijuana was greatest in the most pleasant settings and least in the least pleasant settings; t-tests showed that each cell mean differed significantly ( p < .01) from the other two. Individual Differences
Subjects’ average alcohol use (drinks per week) correlated .22 ( p < .01) with average marijuana use (cigarettes per week), but failed to significantly correlate with the desire-for-alcohol dependent measure (Y = .12, N.S.). Average marijuana use did significantly correlate with desire for marijuana (Y = .33, p < .Ol). Contrary to expectation, there was no significant correlation of either desire for alcohol or desire for marijuana with trait pleasure, trait arousal, trait dominance, or sex of the subject. Possible interaction effects on desire for alcohol or marijuana of these individual difference variables with setting pleasantness or other independent variables were explored through a series of multiple regression analyses. This analysis is equivalent to the analysis of variance for the independent variables, but allows the further inclusion of a quantitative individual difference variable (rather than its dichotomization as required by analysis of variance) and performs tests of both main and interactive effects. These analyses failed to yield any further significant effects. In interpreting the results (or lack of results) with individual differences, the nature of the subject population should be remembered. Since all subjects were users of both marijuana and alcohol, the ranges of the relevant individual difference variables were probably somewhat restricted within this sample.
RUSSELL AND BOND
984
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
DISCUSSION College student users believed that a pleasant setting or pleasant mood was most conducive to their alcohol and marijuana use. Contrary to the compensation hypothesis, they believed that they would be less likely to desire or use either of these drugs in an unpleasant place or while in an unpleasant mood. It could be argued that they didn’t want to do anything in the unpleasant settings-except leave-and that that is why they expressed little desire to drink or smoke there. The data from the After condition conflicts with this interpretation, however, since even after leaving the unpleasant settings there was little desire to use alcohol or marijuana to compensate for the unpleasant mood created there. The results for dominant versus submissive feelings were also inconsistent with the Compensation hypothesis for alcohol. Previous data suggest that alcohol (in small to moderate amounts) increases feelings of dominance (Block, 1970; Catanzaro, 1967; MacAndrew and Garfinkel, 1962; McClelland et al., 1972; Russell and Mehrabian, 1975). It follows from the compensation hypothesis, then, that alcohol would be used to alleviate feeling of submissiveness. The results obtained here, however, showed a person in a submissive mood to be less, not more, likely to drink alcohol. The present results-at least those for the After condition-were inconsistent with those of a previous study (Russell and Mehrabian, 1976) with a similar methodology. That previous study had found a greater desire for alcohol in less arousing settings, a finding not replicated in the present data. More importantly, the previous study had found a greater desire for alcohol in unpleasant than pleasant settings, a finding that was reversed in the present data. These previous results, from only 16 subjects, were considered tentative at the time and may be simply unreliable. One hypothesis suggested by these conflicting results, however, is that there may be large individual differences in beliefs about the effects of these two drugs: Some persons (a minority, the present study would suggest) may believe that alcohol or marijuana will compensate for feelings of displeasure, whereas others may believe that their use would only make matters worse. Such an individual difference variable may provide a valuable insight into the different motives for alcohol use. It may then be interesting to pursue the hypothesis that drug abuse is associated with belief in the compensation hypothesis (as suggested by the findings cited earlier that alcoholics both believe in and behave according to the compensation hypothesis). If, in fact, such a belief is established as a
BELIEFS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
985
precursor to drug abuse, then appropriate drug education programs would be effective prevention measures.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are very grateful to Lesley Walton for her help in carrying out this study. This study was supported by grant DA 01070 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the UCLA Center for Psychosocial Studies of Substance Abuse and by grant AA 01874 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. REFERENCES BLOCK, M.A. Alcoholism and Alcoholics: Drinking and Dependence. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1970. BLUME, S.B., and SHEPPARD, C. The changing effects of drinking on the changing personalities of alcoholics. Q . J . Stud. Alcohol 28: 436-443, 1967. CAPPELL, H., KUCHAR, E., and WEBSTER, C.D. Some correlates of marihuana selfadministration in man: A study of titration of intake as a function of drug potency. Psychopharrnacologia 29: 177-184, 1973. CAPPELL, H., and PLINER, P. Regulation of the self-administration of marihuana by psychological and pharmacological variables. Psychopharmacologia 4 0 65-76, 1974. CATANZARO, R.J. Psychiatric aspects of alcoholism. In D. J. Pittman (ed.) Alcoholism. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. FISHER, G., and STECKLER, A. Psychological effects, personality and behavioral changes attributed to marihuana use. Int. J. Addict. 9: 101-126, 1974. HIGGINS, R.L. The manipulation of interpersonal evaluation anxiety and situational control as determinants of alcohol consumption in college social drinkers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1973). Diss. Abstr. Int. 34: 5194 B, 1974 (University Mircrofilms No. 73-32, 121). HIGGINS, R.L., and MARLATT, G.A. Effects of anxiety arousal on the consumption of alcohol by alcoholics and social drinkers. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 41: 426-433, 1973. JONES, R.T. Tetrahydrocannabinol and the marihuana induced social high, or the effects of the mind on marihuana. Ann. N . Y. Acad. Sci. 191: 155-165, 1971. JONES, R.T., and STONE, G. Psychological studies of marihuana and alcohol in man. Psychopharmacologia 18: 108-1 17, 1970. LUDWIG, A.M., and STARK, L.H. Alcohol craving: Subjective and situational aspects. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 35: 899-905, 1974. MAcANDREW, C., and GARFINKEL, H. A consideration of changes attributed to intoxication as common-sense reasons for getting drunk. Q. J . Stud. Alcohol 23: 252-266, 1962. MAYFIELD, D.G. Psychopharmacology of alcohol: 11. Affective tolerance in alcohol intoxication, J . Nerv. Men!. Dis. 146: 322-327, 1968. McCLELLAND, D.C., DAVIS, W.N., KALIN, R., and WANNER, E. The Drinking Man. New York: Free Press, 1972.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
986
RUSSELL AND BOND
McNAMEE, H.B., MELLO, N.H., and MENDELSON, J.H. Experimental analysis of drinking patterns of alcoholics: Concurrent psychiatric observation.Am. J . Psychiutry 124: 1063-1069, 1968. MEHRABIAN, A,, and RUSSELL, J.A. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1974. MENDELSON, J.H., LA DOU, J., and SOLOMON, P. Experimentally induced chronic intoxication and withdrawal in alcoholics: Part 3, Psychiatric findings. Q . J . Stud. Alcohol. SUPPI.2: 40-52, 1964. NATHAN, P.E., O’BRIEN, J.S., and LOWENSTEIN, L.M. Operant studies of chronic alcoholism: Interaction of alcohol and alcoholics. In M. K. Roach, W. M. McIsaac, and P. J . Creavan (eds.) Biological Aspects of Alcohol. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971. RUSSELL, J.A., and MEHRABIAN, A. The mediating role of emotions in alcohol use. J . Stud. Alcohol 36: 1508-1536, 1975. RUSSELL, J.A., and MEHRABIAN, A. Some behavioral effects of the physical environment. In s. Wapner, s. B. Cohen, and B. Kaplan (eds.) Experiencing the Environment. New York: Plenum, 1976. TART, C. On Being Stoned: A Psychological Survey of Marijuana Intoxication. Palo Alto, California: Science and Behavior Books, 1971. VANNICELLI, M.L. Mood and self-perception of alcoholics when sober and intoxicated. Q . J . Stud. Alcohol 33: 341-357, 1972.
The International Journal of the Addictions, 14(7), 977-986, 1979
Beliefs among College Students on Settings and Emotions Conducive to Alcohol and Marijuana Use James A. Russell" Catherine R. Bond Department of Psychology The University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbis V6T I W5, Canada
Abstract
Two hundred college student alcohol and marijuana users rated their desire to drink alcohol and desire to smoke marijuana in or after different settings shown via color photographic slides. Contrary to the compensation hypothesis (that these drugs are used to escape from unpleasant circumstances), desire for both alcohol and marijuana was greater both in and after more pleasant settings than unpleasant ones. These results were more consistent with an amplification hypothesis, that alcohol and marijuana intensify emotions already present. It is a common notion that one reason a person will use drugs, including alcohol and marijuana, is to alter his emotional state (mood, *TOwhom requests for reprints should be addressed 971
Copyright @ 1979 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Neither this work nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
978
RUSSELL AND BOND
feeling, or affect). According to the compensation hypothesis, alcohol and marijuana increase pleasure and are thus used to compensate for displeasure. An unpleasant mood or setting is therefore conducive to their use. According to the amplijication hypothesis, alcohol and marijuana do not necessarily increase a person’s level of pleasure, but rather amplify whatever emotion he is already feeling. An unpleasant mood or setting would thus discourage their use since the displeasure would only be thereby intensified. Only a few studies have been directly concerned with the effects of mood or setting on drug use. Nathan et al., (1971) found that alcoholics drank more in their typical hospital ward environment than in a redecorated, presumably more pleasant ward that included a bar and bartender. These results support the compensation hypothesis-at least for alcoholics. Conflicting findings were obtained among studies of college student drinkers. In accord with the amplification hypothesis, McClelland et al., (1972) found more drinking in a more pleasant setting. But, in accord with the compensation hypothesis, Higgins (1973) found more drinking in an unpleasant, “threat” condition (one involving the threat of a subsequent personal evaluation by strangers) than in a “no-threat’’ control condition. Finally, Higgins and Marlatt (1973) found no difference in alcohol consumption between subjects in a “threat” (of electric shock) condition and those in a “no-threat” control condition. Recent studies have suggested the importance of users’ beliefs regarding the relationship between their emotional state (as, say, induced by the setting) and their desire for and use of alcohol or marijuana. These studies have found that regular marijuana users were generally unable to distinguish marijuana in commonly used dosages from a placebo or to distinguish among the effects of marijuana of different strengths (Cappell et al., 1973; Cappell and Pliner, 1974; Jones, 1971; Jones and Stone, 1970). Thus, for commonly used dosages, the effects of marijuana may be more attributable to the user’s beliefs or expectations than to the drug itself. Tart (1971) surveyed the beliefs of marijuana users regarding their emotional reactions to marijuana and found some agreement with a statement of the amplification hypothesis: “Whatever mood I was in before turning on becomes greatly amplified” (p. 181). But he found even more agreement with a statement of the compensation hypothesis: “I almost invariably feel good when I turn on, regardless of whether I felt bad before turning on” (p. 181). Fisher and Steckler (1974) also found evidence for belief in both hypotheses and, interestingly, found that belief in the compensation hypothesis was positively correlated with frequency
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
BELIEFS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
979
of marijuana use. Studies have typically found that alcoholics and heavy users believe that alcohol improves their emotional state (Blume and Sheppard, 1967; Mayfield, 1968; McNamee et al., 1968; Mendelson et al., 1964; Vannicelli, 1972). Ludwig and Stark (1974) specifically studied alcoholics’ beliefs regarding emotions and situations that could cause their craving for alcohol. “In general, alcoholics are more likely to experience craving when they feel anxious, worried, depressed, lonesome or bored” (p. 902). For example, 93.3% of their sample said they would crave alcohol when depressed, but only 23.3% would crave alcohol when feeling good. Taken together, these studies indicate that most alcoholics favor the compensation hypothesis over the amplification hypothesis, a result that agrees with Nathan et al’s. (1971) finding that alcoholics behave according , to the compensation hypothesis. Russell and Mehrabian (1976) asked a small sample of college stydent drinkers to rate what their desire for alcohol would be after experiencing each of 12 different settings (shown to subjects through photographic slides) that varied in their affective quality. Subjects believed that they would desire more alcohol after having been in unpleasant than in pleasant places. Unfortunately, the desire for alcohol was confounded in this study with the subjects’ imagined drinking situation. One goal of the present study was to replicate these results without such a confounding. In the present study, 90 color photographic slides were used to represent a wide variety of settings. Both compensation and amplification hypotheses predict (although in opposite directions) that the emotional quality of the setting in which a person finds himself will influence his desire for alcohol and marijuana. Studies in environmental psychology provide a description of the emotional quality of settings that may therefore be useful to drug researchers. Mehrabian and Russell (1974) hypothesized three dimensions of the emotional or affective quality of places-pleasantness, arousing quality, and dominance-eliciting qualityand the slides were thus selected for this study such that these three dimensions formed orthogonal independent variables. Subjects rated their desire to drink alcohol and desire to smoke marijuana-one half of the subjects while in the setting (During condition), the other half after having been in the setting (After condition). The During condition was introduced to avoid the problem of confounding the desire to drink or to smoke with an imagined drinking situation and to assess beliefs regarding settings conducive to drug use. The After condition was included to emphasize the emotional state created by a
RUSSELL AND BOND
980
setting over the setting itself and thus to assess beliefs regarding emotions conducive to drug use.
METHOD
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
Subjects
Two hundred University of British Columbia undergraduates (125 males and 75 females) who had used both alcohol and marijuana, each a minimum of six times, volunteered to participate anonymously in this study. From self-report data, their mean number of alcoholic drinks per week was 4.96 (SD = 3.14); their mean number of marijuana cigarettes per week was 2.12 (SD = 2.45). Materials
Russell and Mehrabian (1976) developed a set of 320 color photographic slides, each of a different physical setting. A diversity of scenes were included in the set: urban, suburban, rural, and wilderness areas; various climates; interiors and exteriors of buildings; scenes with or without persons; and scenes from various countries. The settings also differed in their emotion-eliciting qualities; in particular, all possible combinations of pleasantness, arousing quality, and dominance-eliciting quality were included. These qualities had been assessed by verbal ratings from subjects not included in the present experiment. Evidence of the reliability and validity of these ratings was provided by Russell and Mehrabian (1976). From this pool of 320 slides, 90 were selected for use as stimuli in this study. To minimize the effects of the specific content of the slides and to better concentrate on the emotion-eliciting qualities of the settings, five slides were selected irrespective of content to form each cell of a factorial design in which three levels of pleasantness, three levels of arousing quality, and two levels of dominance-eliciting quality were completely crossed. In other words, there were 18 cells (3 x 3 x 2) with five replications per cell. Procedure
Subjects were brought together in groups ranging from two to twenty to view the slides. Subjects first responded to a questionnaire concerning
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
BELIEFS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
981
their prior alcohol and marijuana use. Written instructions then informed each subject of the general procedure, and the first slide was shown. Written instructions asked each subject to imagine that he was actually in the setting shown and, especially, to imagine his mood there. A randomly selected half of the subjects (the During group) were asked to imagine “that you are in the place shown in the slide for one hour.” The other half of the subjects (the After group) were asked to imagine “that you were in the place shown in the slide for an hour. Now, you have left the placebut are still in the mood created there. Answer the following questions for the one hour just after you have left the place.” Each subject then responded to a series of questions, the dependent measures of the study, presented in Table 1. When each subject had completed his rating form, he was told that this procedure would be repeated again exactly as before, except that a Table 1 Questionnaire Measure of Desire to Drink Alcohol and Desire to Smoke Mar&anan The questions concerning alcohol were: 1. (+) How much would you feel like having a drink (something alcoholic)
during this hour? Do you think that, “It’s just nor the right time to have an alcoholic drink”? 3. (+) How intoxicated would you like to be? (with alcohol) 4. (+) How many alcoholic drinks would you like to have during this hour? (A drink is either a 4-ounce glass of wine, a 12-ounce glass of beer, or a It-ounce glass of hard liquor). Circle one:
2. (-)
The questions concerning marijuana were: 5. (+-) How much would you feel like smoking marijuana? (Ignore legal problems. In other words, assume you would be safe from police.) 6. (-) Do you think that “It’s just nor the right time to smoke marijuana”? 7. (+) How intoxicated (stoned) would you like to be? (with marijuana) 8. (+) How many joints of medium potency marijuana would you like to smoke? Circle one: 0
4
1
1
4
2
2
4
3
3
4
4
“On the actual rating form, the plus and minus scoring keys of the items were omitted. A wore on a negatively keyed item was computed by reversing the sign on the response to the item. Items were answered on an eight-point rating scale ranging from “not at all” to “extremely so,” except for Questions 2 and 8, which concerned quantity and which were answered on the nine-point scales shown. Items were presented to subjects in the order shown.
RUSSELL AND BOND
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
982
different setting would be shown. A total of 18 slides were shown to each group of subjects in this manner. There were five such sets of 18 slides, each set constituting a randomly ordered replication of the factorial design. Subjects were randomly assigned to replication and responded to one of two counterbalanced orders of presentation. In other words, the design was within-subject for the three factors of emotional quality of the setting but between-subject for the during-after factor, the five replications, and the order of presentation. After viewing the 18 slides, each subject completed Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) verbal, self-report measures of trait-pleasure, traitarousal, and trait-dominance. These three scales assess individual differences in characteristic, general emotional levels.
RESULTS Dependent Measures
Intercorrelations among the four items concerning desire for alcohol (Table 1) ranged from -49 to 238; among the four items concerning desire for marijuana, intercorrelations ranged from .52 to .93. Both sets of correlations were adequate and, moreover, separate analyses of variance showed similar results for each alcohol item and for each marijuana item. Therefore, scores on items were standardized and then summed to form composite desire-for-alcohol and desire-for-marijuana measures. In turn, these two measures were found to correlate .47. Independent Variables
Analysis of variance showed that there were two significant main effects for desire for alcohol: setting pleasantness, F (2, 8) = 16.2, p < .01, and setting dominance-eliciting quality, F(1, 4) = 7.82, p < .05. Cell means showed that desire for alcohol was greatest in (and after) the most pleasant settings and was least in the least pleasant settings; t-tests showed that each of the three cell means differed significantly ( p < .01) from each other. Cell means showed that desire for alcohol was greater in (and after) dominance-eliciting settings than submissiveness-elicitingones. There was one significant interaction effect: During-After x Dominance-eliciting Quality, F (1,4) = 12.59,p < .05. Cell means showed that the main effect due to dominance noted above was larger in the During than in the After
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
BELIEFS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
983
condition. In other words, whereas a subject’s desire for alcohol was affected by the dominance-eliciting quality of a setting even after he had left it, he was affected to a greater extent while still within the setting. There were no further significant effects concerning alcohol. The arousing quality of the setting had no significant effect on the desire to drink. The lack of other interaction effects indicates, for example, that the inhibiting effect on drinking due to an unpleasant setting remained even after the person had left the setting (presumably, provided he was still in the mood created there). The results for desire for marijuana were quite simple: a single, significant main effect in which desire for marijuana was greatest in (and after) more pleasant settings, F (2, 8) = 25.88, p < .01. No other main or interactive effects approached significance. Cell means showed that, as in the case of alcohol, desire for marijuana was greatest in the most pleasant settings and least in the least pleasant settings; t-tests showed that each cell mean differed significantly ( p < .01) from the other two. Individual Differences
Subjects’ average alcohol use (drinks per week) correlated .22 ( p < .01) with average marijuana use (cigarettes per week), but failed to significantly correlate with the desire-for-alcohol dependent measure (Y = .12, N.S.). Average marijuana use did significantly correlate with desire for marijuana (Y = .33, p < .Ol). Contrary to expectation, there was no significant correlation of either desire for alcohol or desire for marijuana with trait pleasure, trait arousal, trait dominance, or sex of the subject. Possible interaction effects on desire for alcohol or marijuana of these individual difference variables with setting pleasantness or other independent variables were explored through a series of multiple regression analyses. This analysis is equivalent to the analysis of variance for the independent variables, but allows the further inclusion of a quantitative individual difference variable (rather than its dichotomization as required by analysis of variance) and performs tests of both main and interactive effects. These analyses failed to yield any further significant effects. In interpreting the results (or lack of results) with individual differences, the nature of the subject population should be remembered. Since all subjects were users of both marijuana and alcohol, the ranges of the relevant individual difference variables were probably somewhat restricted within this sample.
RUSSELL AND BOND
984
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
DISCUSSION College student users believed that a pleasant setting or pleasant mood was most conducive to their alcohol and marijuana use. Contrary to the compensation hypothesis, they believed that they would be less likely to desire or use either of these drugs in an unpleasant place or while in an unpleasant mood. It could be argued that they didn’t want to do anything in the unpleasant settings-except leave-and that that is why they expressed little desire to drink or smoke there. The data from the After condition conflicts with this interpretation, however, since even after leaving the unpleasant settings there was little desire to use alcohol or marijuana to compensate for the unpleasant mood created there. The results for dominant versus submissive feelings were also inconsistent with the Compensation hypothesis for alcohol. Previous data suggest that alcohol (in small to moderate amounts) increases feelings of dominance (Block, 1970; Catanzaro, 1967; MacAndrew and Garfinkel, 1962; McClelland et al., 1972; Russell and Mehrabian, 1975). It follows from the compensation hypothesis, then, that alcohol would be used to alleviate feeling of submissiveness. The results obtained here, however, showed a person in a submissive mood to be less, not more, likely to drink alcohol. The present results-at least those for the After condition-were inconsistent with those of a previous study (Russell and Mehrabian, 1976) with a similar methodology. That previous study had found a greater desire for alcohol in less arousing settings, a finding not replicated in the present data. More importantly, the previous study had found a greater desire for alcohol in unpleasant than pleasant settings, a finding that was reversed in the present data. These previous results, from only 16 subjects, were considered tentative at the time and may be simply unreliable. One hypothesis suggested by these conflicting results, however, is that there may be large individual differences in beliefs about the effects of these two drugs: Some persons (a minority, the present study would suggest) may believe that alcohol or marijuana will compensate for feelings of displeasure, whereas others may believe that their use would only make matters worse. Such an individual difference variable may provide a valuable insight into the different motives for alcohol use. It may then be interesting to pursue the hypothesis that drug abuse is associated with belief in the compensation hypothesis (as suggested by the findings cited earlier that alcoholics both believe in and behave according to the compensation hypothesis). If, in fact, such a belief is established as a
BELIEFS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
985
precursor to drug abuse, then appropriate drug education programs would be effective prevention measures.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are very grateful to Lesley Walton for her help in carrying out this study. This study was supported by grant DA 01070 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the UCLA Center for Psychosocial Studies of Substance Abuse and by grant AA 01874 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. REFERENCES BLOCK, M.A. Alcoholism and Alcoholics: Drinking and Dependence. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1970. BLUME, S.B., and SHEPPARD, C. The changing effects of drinking on the changing personalities of alcoholics. Q . J . Stud. Alcohol 28: 436-443, 1967. CAPPELL, H., KUCHAR, E., and WEBSTER, C.D. Some correlates of marihuana selfadministration in man: A study of titration of intake as a function of drug potency. Psychopharrnacologia 29: 177-184, 1973. CAPPELL, H., and PLINER, P. Regulation of the self-administration of marihuana by psychological and pharmacological variables. Psychopharmacologia 4 0 65-76, 1974. CATANZARO, R.J. Psychiatric aspects of alcoholism. In D. J. Pittman (ed.) Alcoholism. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. FISHER, G., and STECKLER, A. Psychological effects, personality and behavioral changes attributed to marihuana use. Int. J. Addict. 9: 101-126, 1974. HIGGINS, R.L. The manipulation of interpersonal evaluation anxiety and situational control as determinants of alcohol consumption in college social drinkers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1973). Diss. Abstr. Int. 34: 5194 B, 1974 (University Mircrofilms No. 73-32, 121). HIGGINS, R.L., and MARLATT, G.A. Effects of anxiety arousal on the consumption of alcohol by alcoholics and social drinkers. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 41: 426-433, 1973. JONES, R.T. Tetrahydrocannabinol and the marihuana induced social high, or the effects of the mind on marihuana. Ann. N . Y. Acad. Sci. 191: 155-165, 1971. JONES, R.T., and STONE, G. Psychological studies of marihuana and alcohol in man. Psychopharmacologia 18: 108-1 17, 1970. LUDWIG, A.M., and STARK, L.H. Alcohol craving: Subjective and situational aspects. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 35: 899-905, 1974. MAcANDREW, C., and GARFINKEL, H. A consideration of changes attributed to intoxication as common-sense reasons for getting drunk. Q. J . Stud. Alcohol 23: 252-266, 1962. MAYFIELD, D.G. Psychopharmacology of alcohol: 11. Affective tolerance in alcohol intoxication, J . Nerv. Men!. Dis. 146: 322-327, 1968. McCLELLAND, D.C., DAVIS, W.N., KALIN, R., and WANNER, E. The Drinking Man. New York: Free Press, 1972.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by York University Libraries on 12/27/14 For personal use only.
986
RUSSELL AND BOND
McNAMEE, H.B., MELLO, N.H., and MENDELSON, J.H. Experimental analysis of drinking patterns of alcoholics: Concurrent psychiatric observation.Am. J . Psychiutry 124: 1063-1069, 1968. MEHRABIAN, A,, and RUSSELL, J.A. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1974. MENDELSON, J.H., LA DOU, J., and SOLOMON, P. Experimentally induced chronic intoxication and withdrawal in alcoholics: Part 3, Psychiatric findings. Q . J . Stud. Alcohol. SUPPI.2: 40-52, 1964. NATHAN, P.E., O’BRIEN, J.S., and LOWENSTEIN, L.M. Operant studies of chronic alcoholism: Interaction of alcohol and alcoholics. In M. K. Roach, W. M. McIsaac, and P. J . Creavan (eds.) Biological Aspects of Alcohol. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971. RUSSELL, J.A., and MEHRABIAN, A. The mediating role of emotions in alcohol use. J . Stud. Alcohol 36: 1508-1536, 1975. RUSSELL, J.A., and MEHRABIAN, A. Some behavioral effects of the physical environment. In s. Wapner, s. B. Cohen, and B. Kaplan (eds.) Experiencing the Environment. New York: Plenum, 1976. TART, C. On Being Stoned: A Psychological Survey of Marijuana Intoxication. Palo Alto, California: Science and Behavior Books, 1971. VANNICELLI, M.L. Mood and self-perception of alcoholics when sober and intoxicated. Q . J . Stud. Alcohol 33: 341-357, 1972.
