International Journal of the Addictions
ISSN: 0020-773X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/isum19
Social Determinants of Alcohol and Marijuana Effects: A Systematic Theory James D. Orcutt To cite this article: James D. Orcutt (1975) Social Determinants of Alcohol and Marijuana Effects: A Systematic Theory, International Journal of the Addictions, 10:6, 1021-1033, DOI: 10.3109/10826087509028358 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826087509028358
Published online: 03 Jul 2009.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 15
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=isum19 Download by: [Australian National University]
Date: 29 April 2016, At: 07:02
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
The International Journal of the Addictions, 10(6), pp. 1021-1033, 1975
Social Determinants of Alcohol and Marijuana Effects: A Systematic Theory* James D. Orcutt Department of Sociology Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida
Abstract Based on the sociological perspective on recreational drug effects, three social determinants are propositionally related to the normal effects of alcohol and marijuana. Effects vary across drugs, users, and situations along an experiential-behavioral dimension termed “effect-orientation.” The content of normative expectations toward effects and the interactional characteristics of drug-using situations are conceptualized as direct determinants of effect-orientations. The relative clarity of normative expectations indirectly influences effect-orientations through its relationship to the other two social determinants. The theory stresses the
* This is a revised version of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, New York, 1973. 1021
Copyright 0 1975 b y 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.
ORCUTT
1022
importance of comparative research on the normal uses of alcohol and marijuana.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
INTRODUCTI ON Largely as a by-product of efforts to analyze and explain various social problems associated with alcohol and marijuana use, extensive bodies of descriptive evidence on the “normal” recreational uses of these drugs have accumulated. However, such evidence is generally viewed as theoretically significant only as it provides insights into pathological or “deviant” aspects of drug consumption. The normal uses of alcohol and marijuana per se have received relatively little theoretical attention. Theoretical and empirical comparisons between alcohol and marijuana as recreational drugs are virtually nonexistent. The divergent concerns of alcohol researchers with “problem drinking” and of marijuana researchers with “marijuana myths and facts” have contributed to a virtual isolation of these two areas of study. Common directions for alcohol and marijuana research might be more readily established by focusing on normal or typical patterns of recreational drug use. In an earlier paper (Orcutt, 1972), the comparative study of “typical effects” of recreational drugs was singled out as one promising area for theoretical development. Descriptive generalizations from the sociological literature on alcohol and marijuana were incorporated into a comparative framework for analyzing recreational drug effects as socially determined phenomena. Based on this framework, the present paper will introduce a systematic social psychological theory of recreational drug effects. Some implications of the theory for research on the normal uses of alcohol and marijuana will be discussed.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON RECREATIONAL DRUG EFFECTS A distinct “sociological perspective” on recreational drug effects has emerged from studies of alcohol and marijuana in normal use (Goode, 1972, pp. 3-31). The works of Becker on marijuana (1953, 1967) and of MacAndrew and Edgerton on alcohol (1969) have shown that the typical effects of these drugs should be viewed as socially constructed phenomena. As distinguished from physiological “symptoms” of a drug, the socially significant effects typically experienced by recreational drug users are
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1023
symbolic conceptions. * Consensually defined conceptions of effects are learned and experienced by users as a function of social interaction with other users. This sociological perspective on effects stands in direct opposition to what Goode (1972, p. 3) terms the “chemicalistic fallacy,” which views drug experiences as direct and specific manifestations of pharmacological actions. The sociological perspective on recreational drug effects will serve as a general frame of reference for the formal theory to be presented here. Consistent with this perspective, the term “recreational drug effects” will be defined as follows : Socially significant changes in experience and/or behavior which are attributed by the user or others to the influence of a recreational drug. The following assumptions of the theory are also implied by the perspective: Assumption I . The efSects of a given recreational drug are primarily a function of social expectations and dejinitions of the drug. Assumption 2. The eflects of a given recrealional drug are not a direct,function of the pharmacological properties of the drug. As a corollary of these assumptions, a third assumption is central to a comparative sociological approach to recreational drug effects (see Orcutt, 1972, p. 243). Assumption 3. DifSerences berween the eflects of two or more recreational drugs are primarily a function of differences between the respective social expectations and dejinitions of the drugs. These statements summarize and codify some basic principles of the sociological perspective on recreational drug effects. In addition to their primary support in the sociological literature on alcohol and marijuana, they are also supported by recent experiments in psychopharmacology by Jones and his associates (Jones and Stone, 1970; Jones, 1971 ; Snyder,
* In contrast to Becker (1967) and Goode (1972), the term “drug effects” is used in preference to “drug experience” or “subjective experience.” Since the theory presented below attempts to deal with behavioral changes attributed to drugs as well asexperiential changes, the more general term “effects” seems preferable. Similar to Becker and Goode, a distinction is maintained between “socially significant effects” and “physiological symptoms.”
1024
ORCUTT
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
1971, p. 65). As a general frame of reference, the sociological perspective emphasizes the relevance of social variables. However, it has offered little explicit guidance as to the precise nature of these variables or to their interrelationships as social determinants of recreational drug effects. The formal theory presented below attempts to extend the sociological perspective along these lines.
A CONCEPTUALIZATION OF RECREATIONAL DRUG EFFECTS This section will define and discuss the dependent variable in the theory of recreational drug effects. With no pretense at capturing the “richness” of drug phenomenology, this conceptualization is suggested as a potentially useful variable for empirical research on the normal effects of alcohol and marijuana. Recreational drug effects were defined above as “socially significant changes in experience andjor behavior.” Based on this definition it is possible to conceptually classify a specific drug effect as a change in the intrapersonal experience of the user or as a change in the interpersonal behavior of the user. Similarly, clusters or sets of effects can be variably characterized across drugs, users, or situations according to the direction and degree to which they are located along a bipolar experiental-behavioral dimension. More specifically, the central tendency of the distribution of a given set of e f e c t s on an experiential-behavioral dimension will be defined as the “effect orientation” of that set of effects (see Orcutt, 1972, pp. 243244). Further, for a given set of effects, to the degree that the effect orientation is experiential in direction, it will be termed “internally oriented”; or, to the degree that the effect-orientation is behavioral in direction, it will be termed “externally-oriented.’’ Effect-orientations may range from extremely “internally-oriented” in cases where effects are primarily experiential in nature to extremely “externally-oriented” where behavioral expressions of effects predominate. The concept of “effect-orientation” was initially introduced to distinguish between the typical effects of alcohol and marijuana among middle class users (Orcutt, 1972). Generalizing from descriptive studies of normal drug use, the typical effects of alcohol can be characterized as “externallyoriented” (Cahalan et al., 1969; Mulford and Miller, 1960, 1963), while marijuana effects can be predominantly described as “internally-oriented” (Goode, 1970, 1972, pp. 33-62; Tart, 1971 ; Hochman, 1972). Everyday conceptions of alcohol as a “social lubricant” and of the “marijuana experience” exemplify this distinction.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1025
In the present formulation, however, “effect-orientation’’ is more explicitly conceptualized as a dimensional variable. Rather than limiting this concept to a categorical distinction between alcohol and marijuana, the effects of a recreational drug can be differentially described as they vary across users and across drug using situations. Depending on various contingencies, effect-orientations may vary in degree as well as in directionality, i.e., “more or less internally-oriented” or “more or less externallyoriented.” Patterned variation in effect-orientations should be explainable and predictable on the basis of systematic knowledge of relevant contingencies. This analysis is addressed to this theoretical possibility. In the following sections, three social factors will be proposed as determinants of the effect-orientations of recreational drugs.
DI RECT D ETERMINANTS OF RECR EAT10 NAL DRUG EFFECTS The powerful influences of “set” and “setting” upon the subjective effects of psychoactive drugs are well recognized by psychopharmacological researchers (Weil et al., 1968; Wed, 1972; Barber, 1970). These factors are frequently treated as “noise” or “nuisance” variables which must be “controlled” or “neutralized” in order to ascertain the “pure” effects of drugs in experimental investigations. While the misdirectedness of this approach has been emphasized by the sociological perspective on drug effects (Lennard et al., 1971 ; Goode, 1972), few attempts have been made to study “set” and “setting” as significant variables in their own right (see McClelland et al., 1972; Jones, 1971). As used in the literature on psychoactive drugs, “set” generally refers to a global assortment of cognitive, affective, and motivational factors which influence “a person’s expectations of what a drug will do to him” (Weil, 1972, p. 29). For research on the normal uses of recreational drugs, however, the social sources of “set” must be more explicitly recognized. The typical effects of alcohol and marijuana are consensually defined by the normative expectations of “drug-using cultures” (Becker, 1967). As a culturally defined “set” toward recreational drugs, the specific “content” of normative expectations will be analyzed as a direct determinant of effect-orientations. The relevant dimensions of “setting” as a determinant of drug effects have not been specified in the drug literature. Seemingly stymied by the sobering discovery that effects observed in laboratory settings are quite unlike those reported in the “real world” (Jones, 1971), researchers have not gone on to consider the differential influences of various normal
ORCUTT
1026
drug-using situations. From a sociological point of view, the key features of social settings are generally to be found in interactional processes. The concept of “situational context” will specify certain interactional determinants of effect orientations in typical settings of recreational drug use.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
Normative Content
Mizruchi and Perrucci (1970, p. 242) have argued that stable patterns of alcohol use are defined and guided by social norms which act as “directives as to what, when, where, with whom, how much, and why one is expected to consume alcoholic beverages.” The analyses of Becker (1967) and MacAndrew and Edgerton (1969) have shown that the effects of marijuana and alcohol are also structured by expectations shared among users. In line with these observations, “user-norms” will be defined as socially learned and consensually shared expectations defining the effects of a given recreational drug. In the specific determination of effect-orientations, the qualitative nature or “content” of “user-norms’’ will be most salient (see Mizruchi and Perrucci, 1970). Normative expectations can be classified according “to the nature of action called for . . . (e.g.3 . . . norms referring to behavior vs norms referring to beliefs, feelings, or cognition” (Morris, 1956, p. 612). Similarly, “user-norms’’ defining the effects of a given recreational drug can be classified according to whether they prescribe an externalorientation or an internal-orientation. “Normative content,” then, will refer to the nature of the effect-orientation prescribed by the user-norms defining the effects of a given recreational drug. The following proposition can now be introduced: Proposition 1. For the eflects of a given recreational drug, effect-orientation will tend to be consistent with normative content. Situational Context
While alcohol and marijuana are used in a variety of situations, two particular social settings are of special importance in the normal recreational use of these drugs. Alcohol use is characteristically associated with the convivial setting of a large party. As Pittman observes (1967, p. 19), “In that American invention, the cocktail party, one finds the best reflection of current drinking expectancies and practices in the upper and middle classes.” Primarily as a result of legal sanctions imposed on the use of
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS O F ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1027
marijuana, use of the drug customarily occurs in relatively small, intimate gatherings (Schaps and Sanders, 1970; Carey, 1968). A smaller gathering is less susceptible to surveillance by legal authorities and a greater degree of control over who participates is facilitated by limiting the situation to close friends. Simmel has provided some insightful contrasts between “sociable” situations, such as the “cocktail” party, and “intimate” situations (Wolff, 1950). In the “sociable” gathering, personal experience is subordinated to “group experience.” Interpersonal interaction occurs through relatively superficial role-performances oriented toward group goals of sociability. With emphasis placed on a “public” style of interaction, the individual in this situational context is prevented from “presenting his peculiarity and uniqueness in too unlimited and independent a manner” (Wolff, 1950, p. 45). The “intimate” gathering, on the other hand, is characterized by a “personal” style of interaction. Emphasis is more readily placed on the personal qualities and experiences of the individual participants. The individual in this situational context is inclined “to consider that which distinguishes him from others, that which is individual in a qualitative sense . . .” (WoIff, 1950, p. 126). Simmel’s observations can be summarized in the following definitions: ( I ) “situational context” will be generally defined as the type of interactional situation in which a given recreational drug is used; (2) “sociable” situational contexts will be defined as where a public style of interaction tends to emphasize role-performance and tends to focus attention on the sociable activities of the group; and ( 3 ) “intimate” situational contexts will be defined as where a personal style of interaction tends to emphasize self-involvement and tends to focus attention on the personal qualities of the participants. The effect-orientations of recreational drugs used in these situational contexts will tend to be influenced by their interactional characteristics. Given the de-emphasis of personal experience in the “sociable” situational context and the interactional pressures to participate in the on-going sociability of the group, the “external” interactional environment becomes the primary domain within which drug effects can be expressed. Given the individualistic focus in the “intimate” situational context, on the other hand, the effects of a recreational drug are more likely to be perceived and responded to as a personalized “inner” experience. Proposition 2 formally states these arguments as follows: Proposition 2. For the effects of a given recreational drug, to the extent that situational context is sociable, effect-orientation will
ORCUTT
1028
tend to be externally-oriented, and to the extent that situational context is intimate, effect-orientation will tend to be internally-oriented.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
NORMATIVE CLARITY AS AN INDIRECT DETERMINANT “Normative clarity” will be introduced into the formal theory as an indirect determinant which mediates the direct influences of “normative content” and “situational context” upon effect-orientation. This theoretical formulation of normative clarity is based largely on Schachter’s theory of emotional states (1964). Schachter argues that emotional states are jointly determined by physiological, cognitive, and situational factors. While a nonspecific or “undifferentiated” condition of physiological arousal is an underlying component of emotion, the ‘‘labeling’’ of arousal as a specific type of emotion is contingent on cognitive and situational interpretations. In instances where an individual has an appropriate cognitive definition for his physiological arousal, interpretation of that arousal as a certain kind of emotion is unproblematic. However, in instances where immediate cognitive explanations are ambiguous or absent, the individual will be motivated to seek an appropriate explanation for arousal in the surrounding situation. Depending on the availability or clarity of cognitive definitions, then, an individual will be more or less dependent upon situational circumstances for the interpretive specification of emotional states. Normative Clarity
Schachter (1964, pp. 168-170) noted certain parallels between his analysis of emotional states and Becker’s (1953) sociological analysis of marijuana effects, but he did not attempt to formally articulate the two approaches. Such an articulation will be attempted here with respect to the concept of “normative clarity.” It cannot be assumed that “user-norms” will be uniformly well-defined for all recreational drug users. New users of alcohol or marijuana may have yet to learn socially defined expectations toward effects. Even more experienced users of these drugs may be isolated from interaction with other users or may be in structural positions where a “drug-using culture” is poorly developed (see Mizruchi and Perrucci, 1970; Becker, 1967). To take account of these possibilities, the concept of “normative clarity” is introduced and defined as the relative degree of certainty and stability with which user-norms define the effects of a given recreational drug.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ALCOHOL A N D MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1029
Schachter’s theory suggests certain implications of “normative clarity” for the social determination of recreational drug effects. Schachter proposes that an individual who undergoes some change in his physiological state (such as the symptoms of a drug) for which he lacks a clear or appropriate interpretation (such as normative expectations) will tend to define his state in terms of the characteristics of the immediate situation (i.e., situational context). Thus Schachter’s argument directly implies the derivation that under conditions of “low normative clarity,” situational context will be a particularly influential determinant of effect-orientation. Schachter also suggests that when an individual has a completely appropriate cognitive interpretation for changes in his physiological state, his definition of that state will be determined by that interpretation rather than by factors in the surrounding situation. In terms of the present theoretical framework, this argument would imply that under conditions of “high normative clarity,” normative content will be relatively more influential than situational context as a determinant of effect-orientation. Based on these derivations from Schachter’s theory, the final two propositions of the formal theory can be stated as follows: Proposition 3. For the effects of a given recreational drug, the greater the normative clarity, the greater the influence of normative content on effect-orientation. Proposition 4 . For the effects of a given recreational drug, the lower the normative clarity, the greater the influence of situational context on effect-orientation. The four propositions introduced above form an interrelated theoretical system. This theoretical network is presented schematically in Fig. 1 . Propositional linkages are indicated in parentheses.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION A major purpose of this theory is to extend the explanatory power of the sociological perspective on recreational drug effects. In the past, the sociological perspective has taken the form of what Merton (1957, p. 88) terms a “general sociological orientation,” consisting of “broad postulates which indicate types of variables which are somehow to be taken into account rather than specifying determinate relationships between particular variables.” Although sociological orientations provide a general context for scientific inquiry, they are insufficient as a basis for specific explanations and predictions of empirical phenomena. Working from gen-
1030
ORCUTT NORMATIVE CONTENT
(3)/
\
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
NORMATIVE CLARITY
EFFECT-ORIENTATION
SITUATIONAL CONTEXT Fig. 1. Propositional linkages in the theory of recreational drug effects.
era1 assumptions suggested by the sociological perspective, the theory presented here offers more specific guidance for research on the effects of alcohol and marijuana. Given adequate knowledge of relevant empirical conditions, a number of predictions can be generated from this integrated system of social determinants. As is suggested by earlier work (Orcutt, 1972), the theory can be used to explain differences in the typical effects of alcohol and marijuana among normal middle-class users. Due to differences in the cultural histories of alcohol and marijuana use in the United States, the current “normative contents” of these two drugs are qualitatively different. Middle-class user-norms toward alcohol prescribe externally-oriented effects, whereas user-norms toward marijuana prescribe internally-oriented effects. Furthermore, the typical “situational contexts” of middle-class alcohol and marijuana use also differ. Whereas marijuana use tends to be restricted to “intimate” situational contexts, alcohol is frequently used in the “sociable” context of the middle-class cocktail party. Relating these differential empirical conditions to Propositions 1 and 2 of the theory, it follows that the typical effects of alcohol will tend to be externallyoriented and the typical effects of marijuana will tend to be internallyoriented. In addition to explanation of the typical effects of alcohol and marijuana, Proposition 2 also predicts systematic situational variations in the effect-orientations of both drugs. When used in “sociable” situational contexts, the effects of marijuana should generally become more externallyoriented. Conversely, alcohol effects should tend to shift toward the
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1031
“internally-oriented’’ direction in “intimate” situational contexts. Support for these predictions was found in a recent comparative study of alcohol and marijuana (Orcutt and Biggs, 1973). Orcutt and Biggs (1973) also found support for predicted variations in effects across diflerent types of alcohol and marijuana users as implied by Propositions 3 and 4. As the degree of “normative ciarity” increased across users, alcohol effects were found to become increasingly externallyoriented. These findings are consistent with the prediction of Proposition 3 that the prevailing qualitative content of user-norms (“external” for alcohol “internal” for marijuana) will more strongly influence effects as normative clarity increases. This same study also found some evidence that situational context is more influential on effect-orientations under conditions of “low” normative clarity than under conditions of “high” normative clarity. This patterned difference across users, predicted by Proposition 4, was consistently evident in the data. In addition to the substantive implications of these empirical applications, they also suggest the relevance of the theory of recreational drug effects to basic theoretical issues in social psychology. A vast literature deals with social influences on behavior, but relatively Iittle empirical attention has been given to the parallel problem of the social determination of experiential states (see Bourque and Back, 197 I). Schachter’s classic laboratory studies of emotional states (Schachter and Singer, 1962; Schachter and Wheeler, 1962) remain the major attempt to deal with the latter problem. The articulation of Schachter’s theoretical work (1964) with the sociological perspective on recreational drug effects points to promising possibilities for research on experiential states outside of the laboratory setting. With the normal effects of alcohol and marijuana serving as a strategic research site, the theory proposed here provides an integrated framework for analyzing behavior and experience as mutual products of normative and situational influences. The theory, in its current form, constitutes a basic set of social psychological propositions which can serve as the core for further theoretical development. The three determinants specified by the theory are themselves determined by cultural, structural, and historical factors which are exogenous to the present theoretical system. As Becker (1967) has demonstrated, social definitions of effects are a function of the history and social organization of recreational drug use. The current parameters of social psychological determinants as well as changes in these variables can be adequately understood only through knowledge of the broader societal contexts of recreational drug use. The ever-expanding literature on normal
ORClJTT
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
1032
patterns of alcohol and marijuana use should be a rich source of inductive generalizations for extending the theoretical structure proposed here. The theory advocates a redirection of effort in the study of alcohol and marijuana. Emphasis is placed on the comparative analysis of the normal uses and effects of these drugs. Potentially important theoretical contributions of research on alcohol and marijuana may be compromised unless efforts are made to transcend the substantive boundaries which presently isolate scientific work on these two drugs. Above all, a more equitable balance should be struck between work on drug-related social problems and work on the normal uses of recreational drugs. REFERENCES BARBER, T.X.LSD, Marguana, Yoga and Hypnosis. Chicago: Aldine, 1970. BECKER, H.S. Becoming a marijuana user. Amer. J. Sociol. 59: 235-243, November 1953. BECKER, H.S. History, culture and subjective experience: An exploration of the social bases of drug-induced experiences. J. Healfh SOC.Behav. 8: 163-176, September 1967. BOURQUE, L.B., and BACK, K.W. Language, society and subjective experience. Sociomefry 34: 1-21, March 1971. CAHALAN, D., CISIN, I.H., and CROSSLEY, H.M. American Drinking Practices. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, 1969. CAREY, J.T. The College Drug Scene. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968. GOODE, E. The Marvuana Smokers. New York: Basic Books, 1970. GOODE, E. Drugs in American Society. New York: Knopf, 1972. HOCHMAN, J.S. Marijuana and Social Evolution. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972. JONES, R.T. Tetrahydrocannabinol and the marijuana induced social “high,” or the effects of the mind on marijuana. Ann. N. Y.Acad. Sci. 191 : 155-165, December 31, 1971. JONES, R.T., and STONE, G.C. Psychological studies of marijuana and alcohol in man. Psychopharmacologia 18: 108-1 17, 1970. LENNARD, H.L., and ASSOCIATES. Mystification and Drug Misuse. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 1971. MACANDREW, C., and EDGERTON, R.B. Drunken Comportment: A Social Explanation. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. MCCLELLAND, D.C., DAVIS, W.N., KALIN, R., and WANNER, E. The Drinking Man: Alcohol and Human Motivation. New York: Free Press, 1972. MERTON, R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed. New York: Free Press, 1957. MIZRUCHI, E.H., and PERRUCCI, R. Prescription, proscription and permissiveness: Aspects of noims and deviant drinking behavior. In G. L. Maddox (ed.) The Domesticated Drug: Drinking among Collegians. New Haven, Connecticut : College and University Press, 1970, pp. 234-253.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS O F ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1033 MORRIS, R.T. A typology of norms. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 21 : 610-613, October 1956. MULFORD, H.A., and MILLER, D.E. Drinking in Iowa: 111. A scale of definitions of alcohol related to drinking behavior. Quart. J. Studies Alc. 21 : 267-278, June 1960. MULFORD, H.A., and MILLER, D.E. Preoccupation with alcohol and definitions of alcohol. Quart. J . Studies Ale. 24: 682-696, December 1963. ORCUTT, J.D. Toward a sociological theory of drug effects: A comparison of marijuana and alcohol. Sociol. SOC.Res. 56: 242-253, January 1972. ORCUTT, J.D., and BIGGS, D.A. A Formalization and Empirical Test of a Sociological Theory of Recreational Drug Effects.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Sociological Society, Atlanta, 1973. PITTMAN, D.J. Alcoholism. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. SCHACHTER, S. The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional state. In P. H. Leiderman and D. Shapiro (eds.) Psychobiologieul Approaches to Social Behavior. Stanford, California: Stanford Univ. Press, 1964, pp. 138-173. SCHACHTER, S., and SINGER, J.E. Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychol. Rev. 69: 379-399, September 1962. SCHACHTER, S., and WHEELER, L. Epinephrine, chlorpromazine, and amusement. J. Abnorm. SOC.Psychol. 65: 121-128, August 1962. SCHAPS, E., and SANDERS, C.R. Purposes, patterns, and protection in a campus drug using community. J. Health SOC.Behav. 11 : 135-145, June 1970. SYNDER, S.H. Uses of Marijuana. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1971. TART, C.T. On Being Stoned-A Psychological Study of Marijuana Intoxication. Palo Alto, California: Science and Behavior Books, 1971. WEIL, A. The Natural Mind. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1972. WEIL, A.T., ZINBERT, N.E., and NELSEN, J.M. Clinical and psychological effects of marijuana in man. Science 162: 1234-1242, 1968. WOLFF, K.H. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press, 1950.
ISSN: 0020-773X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/isum19
Social Determinants of Alcohol and Marijuana Effects: A Systematic Theory James D. Orcutt To cite this article: James D. Orcutt (1975) Social Determinants of Alcohol and Marijuana Effects: A Systematic Theory, International Journal of the Addictions, 10:6, 1021-1033, DOI: 10.3109/10826087509028358 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826087509028358
Published online: 03 Jul 2009.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 15
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=isum19 Download by: [Australian National University]
Date: 29 April 2016, At: 07:02
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
The International Journal of the Addictions, 10(6), pp. 1021-1033, 1975
Social Determinants of Alcohol and Marijuana Effects: A Systematic Theory* James D. Orcutt Department of Sociology Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida
Abstract Based on the sociological perspective on recreational drug effects, three social determinants are propositionally related to the normal effects of alcohol and marijuana. Effects vary across drugs, users, and situations along an experiential-behavioral dimension termed “effect-orientation.” The content of normative expectations toward effects and the interactional characteristics of drug-using situations are conceptualized as direct determinants of effect-orientations. The relative clarity of normative expectations indirectly influences effect-orientations through its relationship to the other two social determinants. The theory stresses the
* This is a revised version of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, New York, 1973. 1021
Copyright 0 1975 b y 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.
ORCUTT
1022
importance of comparative research on the normal uses of alcohol and marijuana.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
INTRODUCTI ON Largely as a by-product of efforts to analyze and explain various social problems associated with alcohol and marijuana use, extensive bodies of descriptive evidence on the “normal” recreational uses of these drugs have accumulated. However, such evidence is generally viewed as theoretically significant only as it provides insights into pathological or “deviant” aspects of drug consumption. The normal uses of alcohol and marijuana per se have received relatively little theoretical attention. Theoretical and empirical comparisons between alcohol and marijuana as recreational drugs are virtually nonexistent. The divergent concerns of alcohol researchers with “problem drinking” and of marijuana researchers with “marijuana myths and facts” have contributed to a virtual isolation of these two areas of study. Common directions for alcohol and marijuana research might be more readily established by focusing on normal or typical patterns of recreational drug use. In an earlier paper (Orcutt, 1972), the comparative study of “typical effects” of recreational drugs was singled out as one promising area for theoretical development. Descriptive generalizations from the sociological literature on alcohol and marijuana were incorporated into a comparative framework for analyzing recreational drug effects as socially determined phenomena. Based on this framework, the present paper will introduce a systematic social psychological theory of recreational drug effects. Some implications of the theory for research on the normal uses of alcohol and marijuana will be discussed.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON RECREATIONAL DRUG EFFECTS A distinct “sociological perspective” on recreational drug effects has emerged from studies of alcohol and marijuana in normal use (Goode, 1972, pp. 3-31). The works of Becker on marijuana (1953, 1967) and of MacAndrew and Edgerton on alcohol (1969) have shown that the typical effects of these drugs should be viewed as socially constructed phenomena. As distinguished from physiological “symptoms” of a drug, the socially significant effects typically experienced by recreational drug users are
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1023
symbolic conceptions. * Consensually defined conceptions of effects are learned and experienced by users as a function of social interaction with other users. This sociological perspective on effects stands in direct opposition to what Goode (1972, p. 3) terms the “chemicalistic fallacy,” which views drug experiences as direct and specific manifestations of pharmacological actions. The sociological perspective on recreational drug effects will serve as a general frame of reference for the formal theory to be presented here. Consistent with this perspective, the term “recreational drug effects” will be defined as follows : Socially significant changes in experience and/or behavior which are attributed by the user or others to the influence of a recreational drug. The following assumptions of the theory are also implied by the perspective: Assumption I . The efSects of a given recreational drug are primarily a function of social expectations and dejinitions of the drug. Assumption 2. The eflects of a given recrealional drug are not a direct,function of the pharmacological properties of the drug. As a corollary of these assumptions, a third assumption is central to a comparative sociological approach to recreational drug effects (see Orcutt, 1972, p. 243). Assumption 3. DifSerences berween the eflects of two or more recreational drugs are primarily a function of differences between the respective social expectations and dejinitions of the drugs. These statements summarize and codify some basic principles of the sociological perspective on recreational drug effects. In addition to their primary support in the sociological literature on alcohol and marijuana, they are also supported by recent experiments in psychopharmacology by Jones and his associates (Jones and Stone, 1970; Jones, 1971 ; Snyder,
* In contrast to Becker (1967) and Goode (1972), the term “drug effects” is used in preference to “drug experience” or “subjective experience.” Since the theory presented below attempts to deal with behavioral changes attributed to drugs as well asexperiential changes, the more general term “effects” seems preferable. Similar to Becker and Goode, a distinction is maintained between “socially significant effects” and “physiological symptoms.”
1024
ORCUTT
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
1971, p. 65). As a general frame of reference, the sociological perspective emphasizes the relevance of social variables. However, it has offered little explicit guidance as to the precise nature of these variables or to their interrelationships as social determinants of recreational drug effects. The formal theory presented below attempts to extend the sociological perspective along these lines.
A CONCEPTUALIZATION OF RECREATIONAL DRUG EFFECTS This section will define and discuss the dependent variable in the theory of recreational drug effects. With no pretense at capturing the “richness” of drug phenomenology, this conceptualization is suggested as a potentially useful variable for empirical research on the normal effects of alcohol and marijuana. Recreational drug effects were defined above as “socially significant changes in experience andjor behavior.” Based on this definition it is possible to conceptually classify a specific drug effect as a change in the intrapersonal experience of the user or as a change in the interpersonal behavior of the user. Similarly, clusters or sets of effects can be variably characterized across drugs, users, or situations according to the direction and degree to which they are located along a bipolar experiental-behavioral dimension. More specifically, the central tendency of the distribution of a given set of e f e c t s on an experiential-behavioral dimension will be defined as the “effect orientation” of that set of effects (see Orcutt, 1972, pp. 243244). Further, for a given set of effects, to the degree that the effect orientation is experiential in direction, it will be termed “internally oriented”; or, to the degree that the effect-orientation is behavioral in direction, it will be termed “externally-oriented.’’ Effect-orientations may range from extremely “internally-oriented” in cases where effects are primarily experiential in nature to extremely “externally-oriented” where behavioral expressions of effects predominate. The concept of “effect-orientation” was initially introduced to distinguish between the typical effects of alcohol and marijuana among middle class users (Orcutt, 1972). Generalizing from descriptive studies of normal drug use, the typical effects of alcohol can be characterized as “externallyoriented” (Cahalan et al., 1969; Mulford and Miller, 1960, 1963), while marijuana effects can be predominantly described as “internally-oriented” (Goode, 1970, 1972, pp. 33-62; Tart, 1971 ; Hochman, 1972). Everyday conceptions of alcohol as a “social lubricant” and of the “marijuana experience” exemplify this distinction.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1025
In the present formulation, however, “effect-orientation’’ is more explicitly conceptualized as a dimensional variable. Rather than limiting this concept to a categorical distinction between alcohol and marijuana, the effects of a recreational drug can be differentially described as they vary across users and across drug using situations. Depending on various contingencies, effect-orientations may vary in degree as well as in directionality, i.e., “more or less internally-oriented” or “more or less externallyoriented.” Patterned variation in effect-orientations should be explainable and predictable on the basis of systematic knowledge of relevant contingencies. This analysis is addressed to this theoretical possibility. In the following sections, three social factors will be proposed as determinants of the effect-orientations of recreational drugs.
DI RECT D ETERMINANTS OF RECR EAT10 NAL DRUG EFFECTS The powerful influences of “set” and “setting” upon the subjective effects of psychoactive drugs are well recognized by psychopharmacological researchers (Weil et al., 1968; Wed, 1972; Barber, 1970). These factors are frequently treated as “noise” or “nuisance” variables which must be “controlled” or “neutralized” in order to ascertain the “pure” effects of drugs in experimental investigations. While the misdirectedness of this approach has been emphasized by the sociological perspective on drug effects (Lennard et al., 1971 ; Goode, 1972), few attempts have been made to study “set” and “setting” as significant variables in their own right (see McClelland et al., 1972; Jones, 1971). As used in the literature on psychoactive drugs, “set” generally refers to a global assortment of cognitive, affective, and motivational factors which influence “a person’s expectations of what a drug will do to him” (Weil, 1972, p. 29). For research on the normal uses of recreational drugs, however, the social sources of “set” must be more explicitly recognized. The typical effects of alcohol and marijuana are consensually defined by the normative expectations of “drug-using cultures” (Becker, 1967). As a culturally defined “set” toward recreational drugs, the specific “content” of normative expectations will be analyzed as a direct determinant of effect-orientations. The relevant dimensions of “setting” as a determinant of drug effects have not been specified in the drug literature. Seemingly stymied by the sobering discovery that effects observed in laboratory settings are quite unlike those reported in the “real world” (Jones, 1971), researchers have not gone on to consider the differential influences of various normal
ORCUTT
1026
drug-using situations. From a sociological point of view, the key features of social settings are generally to be found in interactional processes. The concept of “situational context” will specify certain interactional determinants of effect orientations in typical settings of recreational drug use.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
Normative Content
Mizruchi and Perrucci (1970, p. 242) have argued that stable patterns of alcohol use are defined and guided by social norms which act as “directives as to what, when, where, with whom, how much, and why one is expected to consume alcoholic beverages.” The analyses of Becker (1967) and MacAndrew and Edgerton (1969) have shown that the effects of marijuana and alcohol are also structured by expectations shared among users. In line with these observations, “user-norms” will be defined as socially learned and consensually shared expectations defining the effects of a given recreational drug. In the specific determination of effect-orientations, the qualitative nature or “content” of “user-norms’’ will be most salient (see Mizruchi and Perrucci, 1970). Normative expectations can be classified according “to the nature of action called for . . . (e.g.3 . . . norms referring to behavior vs norms referring to beliefs, feelings, or cognition” (Morris, 1956, p. 612). Similarly, “user-norms’’ defining the effects of a given recreational drug can be classified according to whether they prescribe an externalorientation or an internal-orientation. “Normative content,” then, will refer to the nature of the effect-orientation prescribed by the user-norms defining the effects of a given recreational drug. The following proposition can now be introduced: Proposition 1. For the eflects of a given recreational drug, effect-orientation will tend to be consistent with normative content. Situational Context
While alcohol and marijuana are used in a variety of situations, two particular social settings are of special importance in the normal recreational use of these drugs. Alcohol use is characteristically associated with the convivial setting of a large party. As Pittman observes (1967, p. 19), “In that American invention, the cocktail party, one finds the best reflection of current drinking expectancies and practices in the upper and middle classes.” Primarily as a result of legal sanctions imposed on the use of
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS O F ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1027
marijuana, use of the drug customarily occurs in relatively small, intimate gatherings (Schaps and Sanders, 1970; Carey, 1968). A smaller gathering is less susceptible to surveillance by legal authorities and a greater degree of control over who participates is facilitated by limiting the situation to close friends. Simmel has provided some insightful contrasts between “sociable” situations, such as the “cocktail” party, and “intimate” situations (Wolff, 1950). In the “sociable” gathering, personal experience is subordinated to “group experience.” Interpersonal interaction occurs through relatively superficial role-performances oriented toward group goals of sociability. With emphasis placed on a “public” style of interaction, the individual in this situational context is prevented from “presenting his peculiarity and uniqueness in too unlimited and independent a manner” (Wolff, 1950, p. 45). The “intimate” gathering, on the other hand, is characterized by a “personal” style of interaction. Emphasis is more readily placed on the personal qualities and experiences of the individual participants. The individual in this situational context is inclined “to consider that which distinguishes him from others, that which is individual in a qualitative sense . . .” (WoIff, 1950, p. 126). Simmel’s observations can be summarized in the following definitions: ( I ) “situational context” will be generally defined as the type of interactional situation in which a given recreational drug is used; (2) “sociable” situational contexts will be defined as where a public style of interaction tends to emphasize role-performance and tends to focus attention on the sociable activities of the group; and ( 3 ) “intimate” situational contexts will be defined as where a personal style of interaction tends to emphasize self-involvement and tends to focus attention on the personal qualities of the participants. The effect-orientations of recreational drugs used in these situational contexts will tend to be influenced by their interactional characteristics. Given the de-emphasis of personal experience in the “sociable” situational context and the interactional pressures to participate in the on-going sociability of the group, the “external” interactional environment becomes the primary domain within which drug effects can be expressed. Given the individualistic focus in the “intimate” situational context, on the other hand, the effects of a recreational drug are more likely to be perceived and responded to as a personalized “inner” experience. Proposition 2 formally states these arguments as follows: Proposition 2. For the effects of a given recreational drug, to the extent that situational context is sociable, effect-orientation will
ORCUTT
1028
tend to be externally-oriented, and to the extent that situational context is intimate, effect-orientation will tend to be internally-oriented.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
NORMATIVE CLARITY AS AN INDIRECT DETERMINANT “Normative clarity” will be introduced into the formal theory as an indirect determinant which mediates the direct influences of “normative content” and “situational context” upon effect-orientation. This theoretical formulation of normative clarity is based largely on Schachter’s theory of emotional states (1964). Schachter argues that emotional states are jointly determined by physiological, cognitive, and situational factors. While a nonspecific or “undifferentiated” condition of physiological arousal is an underlying component of emotion, the ‘‘labeling’’ of arousal as a specific type of emotion is contingent on cognitive and situational interpretations. In instances where an individual has an appropriate cognitive definition for his physiological arousal, interpretation of that arousal as a certain kind of emotion is unproblematic. However, in instances where immediate cognitive explanations are ambiguous or absent, the individual will be motivated to seek an appropriate explanation for arousal in the surrounding situation. Depending on the availability or clarity of cognitive definitions, then, an individual will be more or less dependent upon situational circumstances for the interpretive specification of emotional states. Normative Clarity
Schachter (1964, pp. 168-170) noted certain parallels between his analysis of emotional states and Becker’s (1953) sociological analysis of marijuana effects, but he did not attempt to formally articulate the two approaches. Such an articulation will be attempted here with respect to the concept of “normative clarity.” It cannot be assumed that “user-norms” will be uniformly well-defined for all recreational drug users. New users of alcohol or marijuana may have yet to learn socially defined expectations toward effects. Even more experienced users of these drugs may be isolated from interaction with other users or may be in structural positions where a “drug-using culture” is poorly developed (see Mizruchi and Perrucci, 1970; Becker, 1967). To take account of these possibilities, the concept of “normative clarity” is introduced and defined as the relative degree of certainty and stability with which user-norms define the effects of a given recreational drug.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ALCOHOL A N D MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1029
Schachter’s theory suggests certain implications of “normative clarity” for the social determination of recreational drug effects. Schachter proposes that an individual who undergoes some change in his physiological state (such as the symptoms of a drug) for which he lacks a clear or appropriate interpretation (such as normative expectations) will tend to define his state in terms of the characteristics of the immediate situation (i.e., situational context). Thus Schachter’s argument directly implies the derivation that under conditions of “low normative clarity,” situational context will be a particularly influential determinant of effect-orientation. Schachter also suggests that when an individual has a completely appropriate cognitive interpretation for changes in his physiological state, his definition of that state will be determined by that interpretation rather than by factors in the surrounding situation. In terms of the present theoretical framework, this argument would imply that under conditions of “high normative clarity,” normative content will be relatively more influential than situational context as a determinant of effect-orientation. Based on these derivations from Schachter’s theory, the final two propositions of the formal theory can be stated as follows: Proposition 3. For the effects of a given recreational drug, the greater the normative clarity, the greater the influence of normative content on effect-orientation. Proposition 4 . For the effects of a given recreational drug, the lower the normative clarity, the greater the influence of situational context on effect-orientation. The four propositions introduced above form an interrelated theoretical system. This theoretical network is presented schematically in Fig. 1 . Propositional linkages are indicated in parentheses.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION A major purpose of this theory is to extend the explanatory power of the sociological perspective on recreational drug effects. In the past, the sociological perspective has taken the form of what Merton (1957, p. 88) terms a “general sociological orientation,” consisting of “broad postulates which indicate types of variables which are somehow to be taken into account rather than specifying determinate relationships between particular variables.” Although sociological orientations provide a general context for scientific inquiry, they are insufficient as a basis for specific explanations and predictions of empirical phenomena. Working from gen-
1030
ORCUTT NORMATIVE CONTENT
(3)/
\
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
NORMATIVE CLARITY
EFFECT-ORIENTATION
SITUATIONAL CONTEXT Fig. 1. Propositional linkages in the theory of recreational drug effects.
era1 assumptions suggested by the sociological perspective, the theory presented here offers more specific guidance for research on the effects of alcohol and marijuana. Given adequate knowledge of relevant empirical conditions, a number of predictions can be generated from this integrated system of social determinants. As is suggested by earlier work (Orcutt, 1972), the theory can be used to explain differences in the typical effects of alcohol and marijuana among normal middle-class users. Due to differences in the cultural histories of alcohol and marijuana use in the United States, the current “normative contents” of these two drugs are qualitatively different. Middle-class user-norms toward alcohol prescribe externally-oriented effects, whereas user-norms toward marijuana prescribe internally-oriented effects. Furthermore, the typical “situational contexts” of middle-class alcohol and marijuana use also differ. Whereas marijuana use tends to be restricted to “intimate” situational contexts, alcohol is frequently used in the “sociable” context of the middle-class cocktail party. Relating these differential empirical conditions to Propositions 1 and 2 of the theory, it follows that the typical effects of alcohol will tend to be externallyoriented and the typical effects of marijuana will tend to be internallyoriented. In addition to explanation of the typical effects of alcohol and marijuana, Proposition 2 also predicts systematic situational variations in the effect-orientations of both drugs. When used in “sociable” situational contexts, the effects of marijuana should generally become more externallyoriented. Conversely, alcohol effects should tend to shift toward the
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1031
“internally-oriented’’ direction in “intimate” situational contexts. Support for these predictions was found in a recent comparative study of alcohol and marijuana (Orcutt and Biggs, 1973). Orcutt and Biggs (1973) also found support for predicted variations in effects across diflerent types of alcohol and marijuana users as implied by Propositions 3 and 4. As the degree of “normative ciarity” increased across users, alcohol effects were found to become increasingly externallyoriented. These findings are consistent with the prediction of Proposition 3 that the prevailing qualitative content of user-norms (“external” for alcohol “internal” for marijuana) will more strongly influence effects as normative clarity increases. This same study also found some evidence that situational context is more influential on effect-orientations under conditions of “low” normative clarity than under conditions of “high” normative clarity. This patterned difference across users, predicted by Proposition 4, was consistently evident in the data. In addition to the substantive implications of these empirical applications, they also suggest the relevance of the theory of recreational drug effects to basic theoretical issues in social psychology. A vast literature deals with social influences on behavior, but relatively Iittle empirical attention has been given to the parallel problem of the social determination of experiential states (see Bourque and Back, 197 I). Schachter’s classic laboratory studies of emotional states (Schachter and Singer, 1962; Schachter and Wheeler, 1962) remain the major attempt to deal with the latter problem. The articulation of Schachter’s theoretical work (1964) with the sociological perspective on recreational drug effects points to promising possibilities for research on experiential states outside of the laboratory setting. With the normal effects of alcohol and marijuana serving as a strategic research site, the theory proposed here provides an integrated framework for analyzing behavior and experience as mutual products of normative and situational influences. The theory, in its current form, constitutes a basic set of social psychological propositions which can serve as the core for further theoretical development. The three determinants specified by the theory are themselves determined by cultural, structural, and historical factors which are exogenous to the present theoretical system. As Becker (1967) has demonstrated, social definitions of effects are a function of the history and social organization of recreational drug use. The current parameters of social psychological determinants as well as changes in these variables can be adequately understood only through knowledge of the broader societal contexts of recreational drug use. The ever-expanding literature on normal
ORClJTT
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
1032
patterns of alcohol and marijuana use should be a rich source of inductive generalizations for extending the theoretical structure proposed here. The theory advocates a redirection of effort in the study of alcohol and marijuana. Emphasis is placed on the comparative analysis of the normal uses and effects of these drugs. Potentially important theoretical contributions of research on alcohol and marijuana may be compromised unless efforts are made to transcend the substantive boundaries which presently isolate scientific work on these two drugs. Above all, a more equitable balance should be struck between work on drug-related social problems and work on the normal uses of recreational drugs. REFERENCES BARBER, T.X.LSD, Marguana, Yoga and Hypnosis. Chicago: Aldine, 1970. BECKER, H.S. Becoming a marijuana user. Amer. J. Sociol. 59: 235-243, November 1953. BECKER, H.S. History, culture and subjective experience: An exploration of the social bases of drug-induced experiences. J. Healfh SOC.Behav. 8: 163-176, September 1967. BOURQUE, L.B., and BACK, K.W. Language, society and subjective experience. Sociomefry 34: 1-21, March 1971. CAHALAN, D., CISIN, I.H., and CROSSLEY, H.M. American Drinking Practices. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, 1969. CAREY, J.T. The College Drug Scene. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968. GOODE, E. The Marvuana Smokers. New York: Basic Books, 1970. GOODE, E. Drugs in American Society. New York: Knopf, 1972. HOCHMAN, J.S. Marijuana and Social Evolution. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972. JONES, R.T. Tetrahydrocannabinol and the marijuana induced social “high,” or the effects of the mind on marijuana. Ann. N. Y.Acad. Sci. 191 : 155-165, December 31, 1971. JONES, R.T., and STONE, G.C. Psychological studies of marijuana and alcohol in man. Psychopharmacologia 18: 108-1 17, 1970. LENNARD, H.L., and ASSOCIATES. Mystification and Drug Misuse. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 1971. MACANDREW, C., and EDGERTON, R.B. Drunken Comportment: A Social Explanation. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. MCCLELLAND, D.C., DAVIS, W.N., KALIN, R., and WANNER, E. The Drinking Man: Alcohol and Human Motivation. New York: Free Press, 1972. MERTON, R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed. New York: Free Press, 1957. MIZRUCHI, E.H., and PERRUCCI, R. Prescription, proscription and permissiveness: Aspects of noims and deviant drinking behavior. In G. L. Maddox (ed.) The Domesticated Drug: Drinking among Collegians. New Haven, Connecticut : College and University Press, 1970, pp. 234-253.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 07:02 29 April 2016
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS O F ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA EFFECTS 1033 MORRIS, R.T. A typology of norms. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 21 : 610-613, October 1956. MULFORD, H.A., and MILLER, D.E. Drinking in Iowa: 111. A scale of definitions of alcohol related to drinking behavior. Quart. J. Studies Alc. 21 : 267-278, June 1960. MULFORD, H.A., and MILLER, D.E. Preoccupation with alcohol and definitions of alcohol. Quart. J . Studies Ale. 24: 682-696, December 1963. ORCUTT, J.D. Toward a sociological theory of drug effects: A comparison of marijuana and alcohol. Sociol. SOC.Res. 56: 242-253, January 1972. ORCUTT, J.D., and BIGGS, D.A. A Formalization and Empirical Test of a Sociological Theory of Recreational Drug Effects.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Sociological Society, Atlanta, 1973. PITTMAN, D.J. Alcoholism. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. SCHACHTER, S. The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional state. In P. H. Leiderman and D. Shapiro (eds.) Psychobiologieul Approaches to Social Behavior. Stanford, California: Stanford Univ. Press, 1964, pp. 138-173. SCHACHTER, S., and SINGER, J.E. Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychol. Rev. 69: 379-399, September 1962. SCHACHTER, S., and WHEELER, L. Epinephrine, chlorpromazine, and amusement. J. Abnorm. SOC.Psychol. 65: 121-128, August 1962. SCHAPS, E., and SANDERS, C.R. Purposes, patterns, and protection in a campus drug using community. J. Health SOC.Behav. 11 : 135-145, June 1970. SYNDER, S.H. Uses of Marijuana. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1971. TART, C.T. On Being Stoned-A Psychological Study of Marijuana Intoxication. Palo Alto, California: Science and Behavior Books, 1971. WEIL, A. The Natural Mind. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1972. WEIL, A.T., ZINBERT, N.E., and NELSEN, J.M. Clinical and psychological effects of marijuana in man. Science 162: 1234-1242, 1968. WOLFF, K.H. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press, 1950.
