Table 4.

Unstandardized Indirect Effects for Exogenous Variables Predicting Marijuana Outcomes

Variables/Path	b	SE	95% CI
Sensitivity to Punishment (SP)
SP → ALS → T1 Problem Intensity	0.06	0.03	[0.006, 0.129]
SP → PC → T1 Likelihood of Abstaining	−0.17	0.05	[−0.288, −0.072]
SP → PC → T1 Use Intensity	0.09	0.03	[0.033, 0.151]
SP → PC → T1 Problem Intensity	0.06	0.02	[0.015, 0.098]
SP → PC → T2 Likelihood of Abstaining	−0.16	0.05	[−0.260, −0.066]
SP → PC → T2 Use Intensity	−0.01	0.02	[−0.053, 0.032]
Sensitivity to Reward (SR)
SR → ALS → T1 Problem Intensity	0.02	0.01	[0.003, 0.054]
SR → PC → T1 Likelihood of Abstaining	−0.25	0.07	[−0.418, −0.117]
SR → PC → T1 Use Intensity	0.13	0.04	[0.048, 0.226]
SR → PC → T1 Problem Intensity	0.08	0.03	[0.024, 0.148]
SR → PC → T2 Likelihood of Abstaining	−0.23	0.07	[−0.369, −0.081]
SR → PC → T2 Use Intensity	−0.02	0.03	[−0.083, 0.043]
Total Effects
SP → T1 Likelihood of Abstaining	0.37	0.10	[0.190, 0.608]
SP → T1 Use Intensity	0.06	0.07	[−0.113, 0.183]
SR → T1 Likelihood of Abstaining	−0.76	0.12	[−1.082, −0.552]
SR → T1 Use Intensity	0.00	0.07	[−0.153, 0.158]

Note. ALS = Affect Lability; PC = Poor Control; SR = Sensitivity to Reward; SP = Sensitivity to Punishment; Intensity = Count Portion of Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) Count Model; Likelihood = Inflation Portion of ZINB Count Model. The inflation portion of the ZINB count model reflects the likelihood of obtaining a zero (i.e., abstaining or having no problems, respectively). Therefore, a positive value represents an increased likelihood of obtaining a zero and a negative value indicates a decrease likelihood of obtaining a zero value (i.e. using). Indirect and total effects were calculated using bias corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals. Significance is represented by a confidence interval that does not contain zero. Total effect represent the effect of one exogenous variable at the mean level of the other.