The subjective value of social context in people who use cannabis

Abstract

Disordered cannabis use is linked to social problems, which could be explained by a subjective devaluation of nondrug social contexts and/or an overvaluation of cannabis-paired options relative to nondrug alternatives. To examine these hypotheses, measures to assess the subjective value of social- and/or cannabis-paired contexts were collected in people who use cannabis (n = 85) and controls (n = 98) using crowdsourcing methods. Measures included a cued concurrent choice task that presented two images (cannabis, social, social cannabis, and neutral images) paired with monetary options, hypothetical purchase tasks that included access to social parties with and without a cannabis "open bar," and the Social Anhedonia Scale (SAS). Little evidence was found to suggest that the cannabis group undervalued social contexts. People who used cannabis demonstrated a preference for social- versus neutral-cued options, and no preference for cannabis- versus social cannabis-cued options on the choice task. In addition, social party demand and SAS scores did not differ between groups. In contrast, we observed evidence for an overvaluation of cannabis context in people who use cannabis, including preference for social cannabis- versus social-cued options, and more disadvantageous choices for cannabis-cued options on the choice task, as well as more intense and inelastic demand for the social cannabis party compared to the social party. These results suggest that social problems associated with cannabis use could be at least partially explained by an overvaluation of cannabis-paired options, rather than devaluation of nondrug social-paired options, in the value calculations underlying drug use decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Figure 1.. Cued Concurrent Choice Task Performance.

Mean percent choice bias (y-axis) in cannabis group (squares; n=85) and controls (circles; n=98) who completed the cued concurrent choice task. The x-axis shows the cue comparison type with the cue order representing how choice bias was calculated (percentage choice for first cued option over second cued option). Filled symbols represent choice bias, which is a significant difference from indifference (50%; dotted line). Open symbols indicate choice indifference (no bias). For example, in the social cannabis vs. cannabis cue comparison type, the cannabis group was indifferent (no bias; open symbol), whereas controls showed a significant choice bias towards the (non-drug) social option. Values are effect size estimates for differences between groups (Cohen’s d). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Asterisks indicate group differences *** p < .001.

Figure 2.. Disadvantageous Decisions.

Mean choices for options of lesser value (y-axis) presented by cue comparison type in individuals reporting cannabis use history (squares; n=85) and controls (circles; n=98). The x-axis shows the cue comparison type with the first cued option in the cue order representing the lesser value option. Values are effect size estimates for differences between groups (Cohen’s d). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Error bars for the control group were large and had negative lower bounds, so only the upper bounds are presented. Asterisks indicate group differences * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Figure 3.. Party Demand Tasks.

Pooled demand curves for the cannabis group (squares; n=63) and the control group (circles; n=59) for the social cannabis party (closed symbols) and social party (open symbols) are plotted. Probability of attending the party (y-axis) at increasing cover fees (x-axis) was assessed. Groups did not differ in demand intensity and elasticity for the social party. The cannabis group showed significantly more intense and inelastic demand for the social cannabis party compared to the control group, p < 0.001. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.