Pmg. Neuro-Psychophormacol. 6 Bid. Psycbiot. Printed in Great Britain. Ali rights reserved
02?~58~6~0 $0.00 + .50 @ 1990 Pergamon Press plc
1990, Vol. 14, pp. 885-902
MULTIDIMENSIONAL BEHAVIORAL MARIJUANA THOMAS H. KELLY, RKHARD W. FGLTJN, CLEEZVES. ~
EFFECTS
OF
and ~W.~~
Division of Behavioral Biology Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.
(Final form, May, 1990)
Abstract Kelly, Thomas H., Richard W. Foltin, Cleeve S. Emurian and Marian W. Fischman: Multidimensional Behavioral Effects of Marijuana. Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. & Biol. Psychiat. 1990, 14: 885-902. 1. Five groups of three healthy adult male volunteers (n=l5), all reporting occasional, controlled marijuana use, gave written consent and participated in residential studies lasting 6 to 15 days. 2. Subjects smoked marijuana cigarettes (0, 1.3, 2.3 or 2.7% THC, w/w) at 0945, 1330, 1700 and 2030 every day, and each subject received both active and placebo marijuana cigarettes in 2-5 consecutive day phases, with placebo and active doses presented in an alternating fashion. 3. In comparison with placebo, active marijuana produced a variety of effects on measures of human behavior, including increases in food consumption and errors on psychomotor tasks, decreases in bouts of tobacco-cigarette smoking and verbal interactions and no changes in rates of task performance, time spent under social conditions or social cooperation. 4. Dimensions of human behavior were differentially sensitive to the effects of smoked marijuana. 5. The simultaneous measurement of multiple dimensions of human behavior is a useful procedure for determining dose potency following marijuana administration. Keywords: Laboratory,
Cooperation. Eating Behavior, Human, Marijuana, Social Behavior, Tobacco Cigarette Smoking.
Abbreviations: Digit-Symbol Substitution Task (DSST), Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), Vigilance Task (VIGI).
Performance,
Marijuana
Residential
(MJ), Placebo
(PBO),
Introduction Despite a substantial body of research concerning the effects of marijuana on human performance, knowledge of the conditions under which marijuana alters performance are poorly understood (Jones 1987). It is clear that when relatively large marijuana doses 885
886
T. H. Kelly et al,
are
administered,
performance specific
dimensions
across
studies.
marijuana are
human
performance
deterioration,
the
of
Performance
well
the
exact
Thus,
specific
that
decrements
but
understood.
the
apparent,
necessary
performance
administration,
not
deteriorates;
doses
reliably
are
disrupted
appear
to
by
of
which
marijuana
degree
of
nor
the
are
within
consistent
several
hours
performance
disruptions
this
the
disruption,
marijuana’s
marijuana-induced
under
neither
produce
dissipate
time-course
while
conditions
however,
to
of
effects
in performance
disruption
occurs
are
are
not
well
understood.
Although other
fewer
than
prevalent.
For
lethargy
and
example,
Smith
absence
of
behavior
et al 1974,
appear
to
and
repeatedly which
lack
changes
of control
over
standardize
smoking
marijuana
Nemeth-Coslett 1989). concurrent 1987b, drug
1986),
et
subjects
Higgins
and
effects
well
studies
or determining
measures
are but
(Jones
1987).
THC
certainly
they
are In
addition,
of
McGlothin
and
on human
demonstrated and
effects
on human human
the
1985,
on verbal
is monitored social
behavior
by
behavior
performance,
the
Mendelson
behavior
an
humans
have
conditions
been under
subjects
marijuana’s
to marijuana
exposure
1984),
and
to
behavioral
is
since
smoke
smoke,
that
amounts
this
issue
topography
for THC of THC
is
an
most
to a large
variability
of compensation
differing
is the
influenced inhalation
marijuana
effects
(Heishman
important
common by
difficult
doses
content
the
extent is
in
is
across
by
subjects
et al
1988,
(cf
Chait
one
the potency of an administered dose include taking such as heart rate (Heishman et al 1988, Foltin et al
1986) al
other 1988,
behavioral
for
always such
measures,
Nemeth-Coslett
concentrations
useful not
of
Smoke
indicates
et
also
including
proposal
self-administered in
are
of marijuana
effects
changes
behavior,
understood.
containing
measures, Stitzer
the
(Mello
are
of
symptoms,
the verbal
Marijuana’s that
of to
of marijuana’s
in which
drugs
Evidence
assessing
(Heishman
output
human results
repeatedly
reports
measures
exposed
1986)
for
physiological
doses, subjects.
not
is common. al
work
of
1985,
effects
have
Also,
context
with
Exposing
cigarettes
Strategies
in
of
evaluating
dose.
studies
(Jaffe
social
as
are
in
across
and
use
of the
contingencies
for drug administration. topography (Henningfield
subjects
of
occur
difficulty
marijuana
Marijuana-induced
but
clusters
with
investigations
classes
1986).
major
procedure inhalation to
Stitzer
of
led
et al 1973).
other
demonstrated,
these
One
from
aspects
contradictory
users
decreases
Zeidenberg
differ
descriptions
et al 1974).
on the
on and
marijuana
monetary
Miles
marijuana confusing
heavy
associated laboratory
depending
of
reported,
repeated
marijuana-induced
(Babor
effects
chronic
by
et al 1976, differ
(Higgins
while
1968),
maintained
Mendelson
the been
in
syndrome”
1968,
behavior
of have
inactivity,
“amotivational West
studies
performance,
in blood
demonstrating correlated measures
et al
samples the
with can
be
such
as
1986,
Higgins
(Barnett
presence
of
marijuana’s intrusive
et al
and 1985).
biologically
other to
subjective-reports
freely
Stitzer These relevant
behavioral
effects
moving
research
Multidimensional
An be
alternative
to
means
determine
various if
a
measures range
were
marijuana
a variety The
to
whether
be
of
of this
a profile and
to
marijuana’s
and
for
a strategy sensitive
paper
behavioral
is to review
the
effects
on
human
to with
the
be possible
humans
from
these
on
a diverse
effects
of
living
in a
behavioral
studies
range
multiple
only effects
the
results of
and
marijuana’s
continuous
utility
would
to which
and
effects
potential
would
measures
dose behavior
degree
investigating
control
marijuana’s
discuss
been
of
the
Such
environmental
of
by
differentially we have
marijuana
measures
be determined
years,
of performance
purpose
determined,
investigation
several
multiple
dose.
measures
past
of an administered on
might
887
effects of marijuana
dose
by a given
designed
observation. can
the
laboratory
determine
potency
behavioral
Over
on
the
of
altered
other
available.
residential
the potency
effects manner,
were
of
of defining
the
In this
performance.
behavioral
in order
of
measures
measures
in
the
behavior.
Methods Subiects
Fifteen
healthy
lasting
6
to
marijuana
(no
fewer
than
and
continued
Environment
were and
(Brady
et al 1974). identical
sleeping
bathroom,
kitchen and
exercise
throughout
the
laboratory
between
subjects
contact
Output
from
adjacent
control
dressing
and
Livingston
video room. bathroom
1982)
for
provided
studies use
and
of
psychiatric
regular
tobacco
studies.
research
designed
connected
exchange
A room.
of
games,
supplies
intervals
by a common
facilities.
facilities.
environmental
extended
apartments
an exercise videotaped
for
over
efficiency
board
laundry
and
the
as
and
displaying for
Subjects
medical
behavior
of six rooms
allowed
areas.
in
controlled
reported
in the
laboratory
furniture,
and
audio
passed Eight
human
workspace
lounge
the
participated
reported
participating
equipped
a bathroom,
used
and
of
consisted
equipment
three,
month),
participate.
residential
computerized
a television
contained
a
were
room,
facilities,
per
of
subject
Center
in
facility
of a recreation
contained
to
observation
rooms
and
each
episode
Research
The
groups
to do so while
conducted
private
in studies,
consent
continuous
Three
the
1 smoking
smoking
studies
system,
to
written
programming
consisted
volunteers,
Prior
gave
Programmed
The
male
days.
and
evaluations, cigarette
adult
15
common The
kitchen,
social
recreation
puzzles,
movies.
corridor.
with
a
The
area room
videogame
exercise
room
Two-way cabinets located and materials without direct
staff.
equipment
located
were
continuously
throughout monitored
the
facility except
projected while
to an
located
in
A computerized observation program (Bernstein and structure for continuous recording of each subject’s
T. H. Kelly et al.
000
behavior
in
limited due
external
sources,
mail,
and
clocks
subjects
or
computerized
protocol
telephones,
remained
watches
in the
were
system
subjects
residential but
when
and
research
staff
To
minimize
variability
compliance.
newspapers,
available,
communication
between
and
radio
facility
subjects
activity
and
for
the
duration
received
changes
television
time
were
were of the
prompts
not study.
via
the
occurred.
Consumotion
All
subjects
drinks,
candy
variety
of items
provided
a
throughout
were
given
bars,
cake
list
to
of day.
eat
supply
type
and
All
food
items
return
all
their
influence
Food
consumption chips,
items, item
in
cake
that
were
the
items,
Each
room
in
portions were
and
to
were
food
reporting
analyzed
as
daily
intake
from
food
that
be
consumed
were
given
Subjects
were
the
system. required
receptacle
end
of
hoarding. had
each
no
to
located day
A previous
procedures
an
to report
communication
at
for food
also
required
subjects
list items
substitute.
a food-trash
removed
to control
the
additional
were
computer
these
box
beverages),
consumed
Cigarette
and
the
they
The were
Subjects
of
a cream
and
day.
subjects from
study.
soft
to
study
measurable
consumption.
in the microwave
Tobacco
via
receptacles
the number
and
juices,
each
items
Subjects
wrappings,
uneaten
at 0900 order
request.
sugar
bread,
In addition,
to
any
monitored,
consumed
reports that
was
items
water, was
fruit,
throughout 2345;
upon
color-coded
and
Trash
demonstrated
of
in
of food food
tea,
items
wrappers
rooms.
on daily
consisted
all
and
cuts,
daily.
allowed
unchanged
provided
cold
fresh
changed
were
0900
coffee,
including
and
was
and
was
were
provided
the accuracy
chips,
consumption
of
were
color-coded
(unpublished)
bars,
food
quantity
private
validate
box
instant
that
list
items,
box
items
between
food
of
instructed
potato
meal
libitum
unlimited
of food
in the food
The
ad
in the daily
the
items,
frozen-meal
contained were
a box
presented
the
allowed
in
Communication
consumption
available,
Food
form.
of food
to
No
categorical
to issues
with
oven,
could
while
meals
at least
preparing
one
consisted
item
that
snacks of
all
required
meals.
Snacks
preparation
(candy
and
without
items,
including
preparation
snack
(heating
an
a sandwich).
Smoking
the
facility,
pressure
sensors
connected
tubing. cigarettes
Subjects
were
provided
electrical
through
with to
assigned
the
exception
color-coded a
specific
appropriately-colored signals
timed
and
recorded
by
allow
the
research
staff
could
smoke
tobacco
for
the
a computer to
and
monitor
cigarettes
color cigarette
duration
of
each
generated in
and
was to
holders.
the
facility.
smoking
with flexible
all
tobacco
pressure
electrical
adjacent
except
with
smoke
The These
in an
equipped
holders
required
puff. with
the
bathrooms, cigarette
tones
compliance
anywhere
of
plastic
control system.
in
sensors
signals
bathroom
were
room
to
Subjects areas.
Multidimensional
behavioral
effects of marijuana
889
Subjects had no access to matches, and all cigarette lighters were under camera surveillance for additional insurance of compliance with the smoking procedures. Subjects had access to their preferred brands of tobacco cigarettes and were allowed to As a safety precaution, smoking was smoke ad li~itu~ between 0900 and 2400. prohibited during sleeping hours, and lighters were removed during this interval. Dailv Schedule Each day was divided into a private work period, from 0945 to 1700, and a social During the private period, subjects were required to access period, from 1700 to 2345. work on any of four available tasks at all times, except for one optional thirty minute lunch break that could be taken at any time during the work period. Two tasks, a digitsymbol substitution task (DSST) and a vigilance task (VIGI) were presented on the The DSST task consisted of 9 random 3-row by 3-column patterns of computer screen. The asterisks and dashes (one asterisk per row) displayed across the top of the screen. patterns were labeled l-9 from left to right across the screen, and the label was A randomly generated number, between 1 and 9, centered directly below each pattern. displayed in the center of the monitor, indicated which of the 10 patterns displayed at the top of the screen should be emulated by the subject on a particular trial. During each trial, subjects were required to press only the keys in a 3-row by 3-column keypad that corresponded to the positions of asterisks in the appropriately labeled pattern. Three responses were required per trial (one response in each row), and a new randomly generated number was displayed in the middle of the screen immediately after each trial. Following the completion of 25 trials, a new random pattern of dashes and Subjects determined the rate of DSST asterisks was displayed at the top of the screen. trial completion, and performance during successive 25 trial sequences was monitored. The VIGI task required subjects to observe a counter located in the middle of the computer screen. The counter increased by one or two units once every 1.25 seconds. Subjects were required to press a key whenever the counter increased by two units, rather than one. This occurred on a random basis on 10% of the trials. Correct key presses resulted in the presentation of a “HIT” message on the screen. If the key was not pressed within 1.25 seconds after the counter increased by 2 units, a beep was presented and the message, “MISS,” was flashed on the screen. A key press occurring when the counter increased by only single unit resulted in a beep and the message, “FALSE ALARM,” presented on the screen. Numbers of trials, hits, misses and false alarms were measured when subjects performed this activity. Two non-computerized tasks, a bingo-chip sorting task and also available during the private period. Subjects were approximately 7360 plastic bingo chips of varying colors and place the chips into separate compartments according to color
a word sorting task, were provided a container of designs and instructed to and design. The number
T. H. Kelly et al.
890
of chips sorted during the time subjects pa~i~ipated with this task was measured, without regard for sorting accuracy. Subjects were also provided with an unlimited supply of 8.5” X 11” sheets of paper containing randomly-generated 7 digit nonsense Each sheet contained a different randomly-generated list words, placed in two columns. of words. Subjects were instructed to cut out each individual word and sort it alphabetically. The number of words sorted during the time subjects participated on this task was measured, without regard for sorting accuracy. During the private period, subjects were required to participate on one of these four Subjects were free to switch among tasks at any time; however, if tasks at all times. subjects paused for greater than five minutes without engaging in a task, they were prompted to do so. Access to bathroom facilities was unrestricted. During the social period, subjects had access to the recreational activities available in the social area, including computer video games, board games, exercise equipment, and videotaped movies. In addition, subjects had access to a variety of recreational activities, including reading, model building, writing, and artwork, that were available only in their private rooms. Mariiuana Subjects were given marijuana cigarettes to smoke at 0945, 1330, 1700 and 2030 Cigarettes were smoked immediately before and mid-way through both the each day. private and social periods each day. All cigarettes on a given day were either placebo or active (1.3, 2.3 or 2.7% THC, w/w, provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse). Cigarettes were smoked using a uniform puffing procedure in which panel lights signaled five consecutive puffs, one per minute, each consisting of five seconds of inhalation followed by 10 seconds of sustained breath holding and 10 seconds of exhalation. This marijuana administration procedure produces reliable increases in both heart rate and THC blood levels (Foltin et al 198713). Each subject received both active and placebo day phases, with placebo and active phases marijuana cigarettes in 2-5 consecutive presented in an alternating fashion, and all three subjects in a study received the same Order of exposure to active and placebo cigarettes was varied across doses each day. studies. Behavioral
Contingencies
In two studies, the amount of time subjects spent on work tasks during the private period and on recreational activities during the social period were measured for six Placebo and active marijuana were each administered for three consecutive days. Based on the amount of time subjects consecutive days during this baseline period. spent on each activity, a hierarchy of response probabilities was determined for each
Multidimensional
Hierarchies
subject. both
placebo
required
and
to participate
obtain
access
to
contingency that
participate amount
on
from
and
social
periods.
three
studies,
by
Subjects hour
for
in
arbitrarily the
social
$6
for
the
in a cooperative
option,
randomly choose they
were
were
allowed
order
Data
to
all
activities time
to
option
allowed
to change tasks
on
the
area
allowed By this
distributed time
contingent during
the
Change
activities the
private
in
the
private
participating
on the
chip-sorting
task,
period,
activity,
highest
activities.
and
$2
per
participating and
studies
were
both
established
social
or
restricted.
for
two
work varied
intervals.
and
contingent
was
day
not
to
same
The
the
the
the
instrumental
the
phases
the
In
one
to
choose
selecting
the
option,
time
equally
was
for
only
the
for
reading
described
probability
in was
above,
activity
it
during
As in the previous studies, subjects were required to activities in order to earn time to access the contingent
whenever
to change
participate
social
Under
earnings
During
activity.
were
was
option,
on
activity
either
was
to
in order
activities
were
of money
participating
activities.
fashion.
cigarette
task.
of four
conditions.
three
instrumental
designated
the
over
activities
amounts for
was
subjects.
the
probability
DSST
subjects
second
on
probability
activities
to
established
contingent
perform
administered
marijuana
instrumental
to these
distributed either
the
instrumental
time
second
again
in order
activity)
baseline and
were
according
contingency
lowest
within
subjects
occurrence,
contingent
during
periods
period,
of occurrence
the
the
to
social
by a factor
instrumental
required
spent
hour
accessing
However,
the
not
were
area
the
(i.e.,
performed as
on
activity)
intermediate-probability
different
on
as
that
probability
to
per
social
for
selecting
was served
probability
spent
activity
low
time low
time
were
subjects
access
of
instrumental
and
period
activities.
The
high
the
on
(1965).
active
chosen
participate
Premack
and
paid
observed
by
of time
participating
activities
of
placebo
paying were
probability
that
marijuana
amounts
during
highest
activity
access
active
the
the
lowest
and six-day
with
amount
Subjects
private next
with
probability
the
for the
task
(i.e.,
activities
baseline
period
was
that
activity;
measured
In
the
Over the
891
effects of marijuana
separately
phases.
established
highest
subjects.
Placebo
and
the
of time
contingent
the
activity
conditions
recreational
among
on
the
increase
baseline
determined
marijuana
procedures
subjects
during
and
were
active
behavioral
earned
to all
subject,
options at any
on
based
time,
three
while
the
were
of
earning
could
participating
individuals
earn on the
in a study.
By
fashion.
Under the activities were
Subjects were required to low-probability activity, and
As in the
they
options subjects
low-probability
chance. on
time.
but
high-probability
earned
the
on
participated at any
two
option,
in a non-cooperative
participating
they
between first
previous
required
studies,
to have
subjects
earned
time
in
activities.
Anslvsis
Mean
daily
responses
(e.g., caloric intake Statistical periods).
during
by
individual placebo
significance
subjects
and of
the
active
were drug
manipulations
calculated
phases
during
were
for the
determined
each
manipulation
private using
and
social
repeated
T. H. Kelly et al.
892
measures
analysis
within
each
of
Results
variance.
were
displayed
by
averaging
across
subjects
manipulation.
Results
Mariiuana
and Food
Effects
of
consumption of the the
marijuana from
day.
analysis (potato more episode. et al
snacks
that
cakes),
chips,
the
as
meals the
result
of
increases to
are
analyzed
on active
presented during
marijuana increased occurred
in
the days
snack in
Fig
private than food
sweet
1.
Total
caloric
and
social
periods
on placebo consumption.
solid
snack
days, and Further food
items
sweet
fluid (soda pop, fruit juice) or solid savory Increased snacking occurred as a result of items. from consuming larger amounts of food per snack
crackers) rather than
in the number
No changes
were
greatest
opposed
snacking,
consumption
occurred was
peanut-butter
frequent
food
and
intake
consumption
indicated bars,
on
Greater
increased
(candy
Consumntion
of meals
or intake
during
meals
were
observed
(Foltin
1988).
1750
1
Private
Social
1500
A
1250
E s
1000
0
750
!2B!.!G
E 500
0
PBO
I
MJ
250 0
Snacks
Meals
Snacks
Meals
Fig 1. Food intake from snacks and meals during the private and social periods, averaged across days in which placebo (PBO) and active (MJ) marijuana was administered, for six Intake from meals consisted of all items consumed when at least one item subjects. required preparation, and intake from snacks consisted of items that did not require These data were presented in Foltin et al Error bars represent one SEM. preparation. (1988).
Multidimensional
Mariiuana
and
Effects
of
summarized and
an
Fig
average on
on
2.
of
tobacco
cigarette
smoked
an average
that
marijuana
administered.
cigarette
smoking
and
incidents
of tobacco
successive
were
On of
marijuana
days
tobacco
in
smoking
(Kelly
administered
it
marijuana immediately smoking
between
was active
shown
when between
that
the
marijuana
were
were delayed cigarettes
unchanged
cigarettes
in
between
subjects
tobacco
in
active
decreases
pauses
administered,
intervals
not
tobacco
cigarettes
active
also
data
marijuana
after
successive
were was
to the
of extended
are days.
effect
increased
observed
was
this
relationship
as a result
when
Inter-tobacco-cigarette was
also
smokers
marijuana
intervals
although
temporal
occurred
active
inter-puff
days, were
the
of eight
on active
In addition
intervals
administration,
which
cigarette
Average
administered.
occasions
behavior
of 13 times
marijuana
examining
smoking
smoking
cigarette days
By
marijuana
administered.
marijuana
was
smoking
days.
smoking
cigarette
tobacco
administered.
placebo to placebo
inter-tobacco-cigarette was
start
on
as opposed
time
Behavior
the
marijuana
the
Smokine
893
effects of marijuana
Subjects 16 times
active
to the 2,
Cigarette
marijuana in Fig
decreased related
Tobacco
behavioral
if on
no
active
et al 1990).
Tobacco Cigarette Smoking Topography 60
50
40
30
20 I
I
10
0
Number of Cigarettes
Fig 2. Number of tobacco cigarette averaged across days in which placebo for eight subjects. Error bars represent al (1990).
Inter-Puff Interval (Seconds)
smoking bouts and mean inter-puff intervals. (PBO) and active (MJ) marijuana was administered one SEM. These data were presented in Kelly et
T. H. Kelly et ai.
894
Mariiuana
and Task Performance
The effects of marijuana on DSST performance are presented in Fig 3. Changes in DSST performance were reiated to the time that the task was performed after marijuana administration. Fig 3 presents data from performance during the 15- minute interval that immediately followed active and placebo marijuana administration. On average, subjects completed 25 three-response trials per minute, and made one error every 50 trials, during this interval on days in which placebo marijuana cigarettes were Overall rate and rate of correct responding were not changed during administered. however, error rates were increased by 40%. active marijuana administration; The magnitude of marijuana’s effect on error rate decreased over time following drug administration.
Digit-Symbol Substitution Task 80 50
3
E
s
40
8 ti
30
,Q 0. 6
20
E $ iii CL
10
0
-10
Total Trials
Errors
Correct
Trials
Percent change from the total number of baseline (placebo marijuana) digitFig 3. symbol substitution task trials, correct trials, and trials containing errors, averaged Error bars across days in which active marijuana was administered, for nine subjects. represent one SEM.
No changes in VIGI accuracy or rates of chip or nonsense word sorting were observed relative to performance observed following following active marijuana administration, placebo marijuana administration.
Multidimensional
Mariiuana
and
During
the
social
the presence subjects
Social
spent
in if
conversation
was
defined
as
social amounts hours and
two
observed activity hour
per
day
as
Fig
in
was
and
Watching
that
social
895
was
total
co-active
time
(social
interactive,
in
the
total
marijuana
decreased
by
the
was
interaction
same
the
amount
most
of
frequent
of time
and
in in was
in
the
as the active
approximately six was in interaction social
the by
spent as well
placebo
spent hours
however,
time
conversation
under
amount
administration;
considered
subjects
in
of time
Social
behavior),
subjects approximately four
change
marijuana
movies
and
of
was
without
administration,
of which
co-action
amount
conditions
the amount
A subject subject.
time
present
in social
as was
another
social
subject
placebo
Active
to
and the
spent
conditions.
listening
No
active
videotaped
recorded,
additional
behavior,
increased
subjects
was
in or
co-action.
changed.
that
subject
interaction,
During social
of time
4 presents
one
behavior
following was
1988).
defined
social
when
talking
at least
hours
amount
additional
conversation
conditions.
engaged
the
one
actively
with
of
marijuana
period,
co-action.
area
effects of marijuana
Behavior
of at least
conversation
behavioral
behavior distribution
approximately (Foltin
recreational
and activity
was of three
Fischman during
co-action.
Social Behavior 420
FElcl l-l
380
q MJ
300
240 180 120 80
Total
Interaction
Co-Action
Fig 4. Total time during the social period spent in the social area in the presence of one or two additional subjects (total), and amount of the total social time spent in conversation (interaction) or without conversation (co-action), averaged across placebo (PBO) and active (MJ) marijuana days, for six subjects. Error bars represent one SEM. These data were presented in Foltin and Fischman (1988).
Mariiuana
and
Time
in Low-
and
Hieh-Probabilitv
Activities
T. H. Kelly et al.
696
Fig
5
presents
changes
instrumental
and
contingent
placebo
active
and
presented
observed On
placebo
subjects
during
both
the
However,
decreased
during
marijuana
days
small
the
the
on
1989,
(during
periods
increased
1990). the
on
the
the
magnitude
period),
the
social
of
both are time
that
in were
introduced. observed
activities period, were
on
was
on
active
of marijuana’s
changes
the
decreases activities
were
to
instrumental
during
Although
private
similar
periods
amount and
contingencies
in
under
social
contingent
was
time
placebo,
the
activities
when
change
and in
high-probability
of
and
increases
engaged
introduced,
private
instrumental
social to
period,
et al.
occasion
across
relative
private
(Foltin
and
spent
were
the
days,
in
direction
subjects
from
marijuana
low-probability
private
that
contingencies
Data
participated
days,
marijuana days.
observed
the
time
active
was
in
when
placebo
of
time
conditions.
On
participated
amount
baseline
activities
marijuana
separately.
subjects the
from
effect
consistently
subjects.
Time in Activities
3
150
5
100
g ii ._ B
50
Private
I
Social
a
i! a 5
-50
z
-1oc
$ s 6
-150
instrumental Activity
Contingent Activity
instrumental Activity
Contingent Activity
in minutes, from the amount of time subjects spent on the lowFig 5. Change, probability and high-probability activities under baseline conditions during the private and social periods following introduction of task contingencies, for six subjects. Task contingencies required subjects to spend time engaged in low-probability (instrumental) activities in order to gain access to the high-probability (contingent) activities. Results were averaged across days in which placebo (PBO) or active (MJ) marijuana was Error bars represent one SEM. These data were presented in Foltin et al administered. (1989, 1990).
Marijuana
In
and
studies
Coonerative
of
cooperative
Behavior
behavior,
subjects
chose
the
cooperative
option
of
time
Multidimensional
earning,
in
which
time
cooperative
option,
in
even
conditions
under
generated socially
amounts
isolated,
choices
for
cooperative
options. subjects
generated
the
option.
were
for
subjects’
no changes
equally
the
non-cooperative
all
related
to
option;
time
choices
were
when
subjects
influenced
by
when
the in
the
social
all
non-
subjects,
would
have
subjects
were
amounts
of
time
cooperative
and
non-
greater
for
relative
the
variables.
option
the
time
non-cooperative
opted
or non-cooperative
to option
relative by
resulted
whereas,
earnings,
in cooperative
the
activity choice
over
distributed
However,
subjects.
cooperative
this
relative
subjects,
not
high-probability
the
three
of
directly
the
all
was
choice for
897
effects of marijuana
among
earned
time
on
opted
shared
the
of
When
greater
Clearly,
time
which
participating
earnings,
was
which in
greater
generated
produced
earned
behavioral
option
non-cooperative Active
choices
under
marijuana
any
of these
conditions.
Discussion
Marijuana
Effects
Investigations importance series
of
of
studies
Marijuana’s (1989,
1990) and
in
subject. in in
between the
preference
social
activities differences periods.
any
during
these
may
Marijuana’s the
between In addition,
social
and
instrumental
was
time
it is possible
factors
in
difference (some
the
less
periods
contingent there
spent
for time
were activities
there
was
during
during
the
time
large
baseline period.
instrumental
showed
alternating
the
a
social
between
subjects
between
effects
was
activity
activities
all
period,
of their
subjects, on
social
majority
probability
during
the
between influencing
probability
a clear
not
subjects
difference
been
During
for
co-workers
factor
highest
in
and
probabilities
most
and
activities,
Foltin
activities
consistent,
that
this
response
spent
the
private
the
For
differential and
from
situational
spent
contingent
have
the
results
contingent
periods.
subjects of
conditions,
in
private
area.
activity
demonstrated
situational
periods.
one
and as
The
of
and
work be
area
social
not
work
activities
period.
social
however, was
single
lowest
and
amount
(i.e.,
importance
difference
conditions, the
repeatedly effects.
instrumental
may
instrumental
period,
Under
tasks). and
the
activities
for
the
in
probability
private
contingent
in
the
social
relative
social
baseline
activities
conditions)
on and
the
the
activities
difference
spent
have
of drug
behavior.
activities
across
drugs
for
human
private
that
of
support on
time
the
Under
participating
the
on
suggested
participating
four
further
low-probability effects
effects
as determinants
effects
across
marijuana’s
Factors
factors
effects
high-
highest
behavioral
adds
varied
During
the
marijuana’s
example,
and
Situational
of situational
determining
every
and
a clear among
all
of
the
probabilities
the private period than during and contingent on instrumental probably during
a difference
related the
to
private
in baseline
the and
relative social
probabilities
T. H. Kelly et al.
898
of
engaging
in
demonstrated
work
that
recreational
activities,
the
period,
private
because in
they
across
the
baseline
they
they
effects
on
social
and
private
and
social
Marijuana’s current
studies,
social
settings,
but
investigators from
between
our
Mariiuana
behavior)
and
effects
not
change
smoking
effects
were
report
Not
with
drug
of drug
all
of
throughout
the
marijuana-induced were observed
related
to
differences
in
across
the
probabilities,
also
observed
only
of tobacco
in
verbal
Fischman
responding
1988). following
1973).
An
that
verbal
interaction
In
even
in appear
earlier
that
the
study,
absence
to be
to marijuana
in
decreasing
et al
interaction prior
spent
by
administration. behavior
factors.
subjects
and
suggested
social
marijuana’s
behavioral
to
to
between
intervals
in
of
related
administration.
smoking
et al
effects, of
bouts
the
time
marijuana cigarette
cigarettes
This
were
time-course
1987b)
however, in
were food
related
and
to time
consumption
the time of marijuana administration. inter-puff intervals during tobacco smoking
of
of the next tobacco resulted in a net
day.
et al
marijuana’s
tobacco
marijuana
per
marijuana
addition,
initiation cigarettes
(Foltin
administration.
following
is
on verbal
1986).
increases
in mean tobacco
rate
drug
successive
which
cigarette delayed the of four marijuana on heart
of In
time.
related
time
time
immediately
over
were
during
the
observed
of
cigarette
(Nemeth-Coslett
independent
related
dissipated
of marijuana
decreases during each
of time
(Foltin
emitted
were
amount
effects
day,
on
to situational
interaction
Zeidenberg
social
are
related
social
marijuana
occasions the
Marijuana-induced
administration.
1987a)
al
task
effect
in
the effects
et
effects
were
DSST
smoking
in the number
consistent
engaged
of Administration
the
the
1986,
that
Since each marijuana administered. smoking bout, daily administration decrease
During primarily
subjects
amount
decreases
co-active
behaviors
Increases
bouts
in
of
Stitzer
following
engaged
on
cigarette
on
(Foltin
Time
on the co-action
reported and
Marijuana’s
and
and
administration.
been
to be
nature
increasing
similarly (Higgins
rarely
errors
administration,
and
Marijuana’s contingent activities
and
those
appears
the
behavioral
in
also
no effect
of alternative
Marijuana’s
behavior had
did
Effects
Increases
have
had
work
ecology.
instrumental
also
study
activities
period,
natural
maintaining
altered
administration. range
may
both
exclusively.
work
social
the
between
to
almost in
the
in
contingencies
laboratory
subjects
marijuana to the
during
marijuana have
subjects
however,
while
unpublished
access
engaged
performed
periods
in
social
administration
report
so,
previous
activities
subjects
distribution
marijuana
(verbal
marijuana
to do
private
on
In the
Other
concurrent
periods.
effect
interactions
that
regularly
or
probabilities,
A
given
recreational
likely
time
activities.
were
selected
is
instructed
that
differential
recreational subjects
it
were
activities
and
when
bout
on
active
marijuana
of
were
marijuana observed
In addition, smoking bouts days,
and
the
Multidimensional
magnitude
of
effect
did
characterization
Clearly, behavioral
not
of
Effects
Results
and
from
are related
the
intervals
of
in
of time
DeDendent
these
to type
amount
studies
time
which
time. had
to perform smoking
in
verbal
interaction
marijuana
administration.
effects
and
decreased
social
produced
minimal
effects
for providing
example,
varies
across
would
use
behavior
of
well.
Other
(Bamett
et but
1987).
strategies,
such
using
drug
1988),
1985),
effects
or
are
useful are
results
indicate
of contextual
not
from the
always
relative
factors
verification
and
dose
of dose,
separating
from
indices,
like 1986,
presence
can these
the
factors
DSST
studies.
changes
in
is For
social
performance.
effects
on
across
studies,
rate,
human
et
al
blood
1987b, samples relevant
measures it may
as
collecting
of biologically
assessed
two
on
information
in
dose.
of food
other
behavioral
be
a profile
This
Foltin
measures,
a given
cigarette
increased
heart
concentrations with
that
in human
marijuana’s
of behavioral
tobacco
errors
potency
the
potency
daily
drug
Stitzer
of
DSST choice
to produce
of
THC
potency
during
marijuana
changes
correlated
a variety
errors
independent
or on subject
dimensions.
of
demonstrating
amount
increased
required
and
the
day,
indicate
of results
physiological
measuring
for
that
evaluation
(Higgins
directly
measures
of any
as
decreased and
results
consistent
comparisons
precisely
absence
measures
more
the
these
contributions
to engender
were
in
By presenting
more
than
for
al
al
performance
during
behavior
studies,
interpretation
advantages
of
et
on other
some
subjective-reports Heishman
These
at doses
only
the
decreased
current
interaction
doses
multiple
offers
and
increased
bouts
throughout
consumption
effects
marijuana
smoking
of social
In the
that
be required
food
behavioral
above,
marijuana
bouts
subjects.
for the
larger
while
amounts
established.
marijuana’s
cigarette
patterns,
a reference
it appears
behavior
be
that
As discussed
smoking
increased
among
consumption but
indicate
or competitive
can
the
marijuana’s
administered,
on total
effects
to
of
tobacco
within
Marijuana no effect
cooperative
and
was puffs
marijuana’s
doses,
following
measured.
successive
successive
performance,
clearly
being
marijuana
between
The
time
time-course
also
between
of administration
useful
over
Measures
of behavior
task
task
change
899
effects of marijuana
measures.
Mariiuana
the
the
behavioral
(Jones
be possible
If so, the relative across studies. In is problematic.
Conclusions The
analysis
conditions. completely topography under
which
of
First,
the
behavioral
the behavioral
different as opposed measures
effects
marijuana
effects
to the
frequency
were
of
measures
collected
marijuana
being were
produced
of tobacco must
was
collected
also
dependent
were on
smoking. be
considered.
on
at
important.
tobacco Second,
least
For
cigarette
smoking
situational
Marijuana’s
three
example, factors
effects
on
900
T.H. Kelly
et al.
social behavior were highly dependent on the conditions under which the behavior was measured. Finally, pharmacological variables related to marijuana administration were critical. For example, the effects of marijauna on DSST performance varied across time, likely as a function of the marijuana’s time-course of action. A residential laboratory in which multiple measures of human behavior can be collected under a wide range of situational factors under a variety of marijuana administration conditions provides an ideal setting in which to investigate the behavioral effects of this complex drug.
Acknowledgement This research was supported by Grant DA-3476 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (M.W. Fischman, PI.). The assistance of Jerry Locklee, Michelle Woodland, Lisa King, Maryanne Byrne, Andrea Rose, Patti Pippen and Jeffrey Rachlinski is gratefully acknowledged.
References BABOR, T. F., ROSSI, A. M., SAGOTSKY, G. and MEYER, R. E. (1974) Group Behavior: Verbal In: The Use of Marijuana: A Psychological Inquiry, J. H. Mendelson, A. M. Interaction. Rossi, and R. E. Meyer (Eds.), pp 61-72, Plenum Press, New York. BARNETT, G., LICKO, V. and THOMPSON, Marijuana. Psychopharmacology a, 5 l-56.
T. (1985)
Behavioral
Pharmacokinetics
of
BERNSTEIN, D. and LIVINGSTON, C. (1982) An Interactive Program for Observation and Analysis of Human Behavior in a Long-term Continuous Laboratory. Behav. Res. Methods Instrumentation l4, 231-235. BRADY, J. V., BIGELOW, G:, EMURIAN, H. and WILLIAMS, D. M. (1974) Design of a Programmed Environment for the Experimental Analysis of Social Behavior. In: ManEnvironment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications. 7: Social Ecology, D. H. Carson (Ed.), pp 187-208, Environmental Design Research Associates, Milwaukee. CHAIT, L. (1989) Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol Content administration. Psychopharmacology 98, 5 l-55.
and
Human
Marijuana
Self-
FOLTIN, R. W., BRADY, J. V.. FISCHMAN, M. W., EMURIAN, C.S. and DOMINITZ, J. (1987a) Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Social Interactions in Small Groups. Drug Alcohol. Depend. 20, 87-93. FOLTIN, R. W. and FISCHMAN, M. W. (1988) Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Human Social Behavior in Small Groups. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. a, 539-541.
Multidimensional
behavioral
901
effects of marijuana
FOLTIN, R. W., FISCHMAN, M. W., BRADY, J. V., BERNSTEIN, D.J., CAPRIOTTI, R.M., NELLIS, M.J. and KELLY, T.H. (1990) Motivational Effects of Smoked Marijuana: Behavioral Contingencies and Low-Probability Recreational Activities. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 53, 5 19. FOLTIN, R. W., FISCHMAN, M. W., BRADY, J. V., KELLY, T.H., BERNSTEIN, D.J. and NELLIS, M.J. Behavioral Contingencies and High(1989) Motivational Effects of Smoked Marijuana: Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 34, 87 l-877. Probability Recreational Activities. FOLTIN, R. W., FISCHMAN, M. W. and BYRNE, M. F. (1988) Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Food Intake and Body Weight of Humans Living in a Residential Laboratory. Appetite 11, 1-14. FOLTIN, R. W., FISCHMAN, M. W., PEDROSO, J. J. and PEARLSON, G. D. (1987b) Marijuana and Cocaine Interactions in Humans: Cardiovascular Consequences. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 28, 459-464. HEISHMAN, S. J., STITZER, M. L. and BIGELOW, G. E. (1988) Alcohol and Marijuana: Comparative Dose Effect Profiles in Humans. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 31, 649-655. HENNINGFIELD, J. E. (1984) Behavioral Pharmacology of Cigarette Smoking. In: Advances in Behavioral Pharmacology, Vol. 4, T. Thompson, P. B. Dews and J. E. Barrett (Eds.), pp 131-210, Academic Press, New York. HIGGINS, S. T. and STITZER, M. L. (1986) Psychopharmacology 89, 234-238.
Acute
Marijuana
Effects
on Social
Conversation.
JAFFE, J. H. (1985) Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse. In: The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 7th ed., A.G. Gilman, L.S. Goodman, T.W. Rall and F. Murad (Eds.), pp 532581, MacMillan Publishing, New York. JONES,
R. T. (1987)
Drug Abuse
Profile:
Cannabis.
Clin. Chem. 33, 72B-81B.
KELLY, T.H., FOLTIN, R.W., ROSE, A.J., FISCHMAN, Marijuana Effects on Tobacco Cigarette Smoking 252, 934-944. MCGLOTHIN, W.H. and WEST, Psychiat. 125, 370-378.
L.J. (1968)
The Marijuana
MELLO, N. K., and MENDELSON, J. H. (1985) Operant Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 235, 162-171. MENDELSON, Acquisition
M.W. and BRADY, J.V. (1990) Smoked Behavior. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.
Problem:
Acquisition
An Overview.
of Marihuana
Amer.
J.
by Women.
J.
J. H., KUEHNLE, J. C., GREENBERG, I. and MELLO, N. K. (1976) of Marijuana in Man. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 198, 42-53.
Operant
MILES, C. G., CONGRAVE, G. R. S., GIBBINS, R. J., MARSHMAN, J., DEVENYI, P. and HICKS, R. C. (1974) An Experimental Study of the Effects of Daily Cannabis Smoking on Behaviour Patterns. Acta Pharmacol. et Toxicol. 34 (Sup. 71, l-43.
T. H. Kelly et al.
902
NEMETH-COSLETT, R., HENNINGFIELD, J. E., G’KEEFFE, M. K. and GRIFFITH S, R. R. (I986) Effects of Marijuana Smoking on Subjective Ratings and Tobacco Smoking. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 25, 659-665. PREMACK, D. (1965) Reinforcement Theory. In: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 13, D. Levine (Ed.), pp 123-180, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. SMITH, D. E. (1968) Acute and Chronic Toxicity 47.
of Marijuana. J. Psychoact.
Vol.
Drugs 2, 37-
ZEIDENBERG, P., CLARK, C., JAFFE, J., ANDERSON, S.W., CHIN, S. and MALITZ, S. (1973) on Memory, Speech and Effect of Oral Administration of A9 tetrahydroca~nabinol Results with Four Normal Human Volunteer Perception of Thermal Stimulation: Subjects, Preliminary Report. Comp. Psychiat. 14, 549-556.
Inquiries
and reprint requests
should be addressed
Thomas H. Kelly, Ph.D. Division of Behavioral Biology Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine 600 North Wolfe Street Houck Building, East-2 Baltimore, Maryland 21205 U.S.A.
to: