Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Addict Behav. 2021 Feb 22;36(2):177–185. doi: 10.1037/adb0000661

Marijuana Use and Intentions among American Indian Adolescents: Perceived Risks, Benefits, and Peer Use

Tessa Nalven 1, Melissa R Schick 1, Nichea S Spillane 1, Sara L Quaresma 1
PMCID: PMC8380270  NIHMSID: NIHMS1656656  PMID: 33617272

Abstract

Objective:

The present study examines how perceptions of peer use, risks of use, and benefits to oneself and others from marijuana use are associated with past-month marijuana use and intentions to use marijuana socially among American Indian (AI) youth.

Method:

The American Drug and Alcohol Survey™, a measure of substance use and related factors, was administered to AI youth living on or near reservations across six geographic regions (n=3,498, 49.5% female, Mage=14.8).

Results:

Greater perceived peer use was significantly associated with more frequent past-month marijuana use (b=.05, p=.038) and intentions to use marijuana socially (b=.74, p<.001). Greater benefits to oneself were associated with greater marijuana use intentions (b=.35, p<.001). Greater perceived risks and benefits to others were significantly associated with less frequent past-month use (b=−.02, p=.002; b=−.01, p=.007, respectively) and intentions to use marijuana socially (b=−.05, p=.001; b=−.03, p=.002, respectively). Multilevel moderation analyses revealed that the effects of perceived peer use and benefits to oneself were related to intentions to use although stronger for those who had used; however, the effects of perceived risks and benefits to others were only significantly related to intentions to use marijuana for those who had used marijuana.

Conclusions:

Results suggest that perceived benefits to others and risks are malleable factors that may be effective components of treatment programs for youth who report lifetime marijuana use, but that perceived peer use and benefits to oneself may be useful in both treatment and prevention efforts for youth who have or have not used marijuana.

Keywords: marijuana, intentions, peers, benefits, risks

American Indian (AI) adolescents are disproportionately more likely to use marijuana, reporting three times greater rates of lifetime marijuana use compared to a nationally representative sample of adolescents (Stanley et al., 2014). AI youth also initiate marijuana use at earlier ages than their non-AI counterparts (Stanley & Swaim, 2015), which is associated with health and developmental consequences and higher rates of marijuana use and misuse later in life (Ehlers et al., 2007; Stanley & Swaim, 2015). Therefore, there is a critical need to understand factors that may be associated with these marijuana use disparities among AI youth.

The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977; Fishbein, 1967) states that adolescents’ attitudes towards a given behavior (e.g. marijuana use) are determined by their perception of peers’ use and beliefs regarding the risks and benefits of use. Consistent with TRA, research suggest that as adolescents perceive greater risks from marijuana use, trends in use subsequently decline (Johnson et al., 2006). Moreover, when examined independently, perceived benefits to others from alcohol use is associated with higher likelihood of alcohol use among AI individuals (Dieterich et al., 2013). However, when perceived benefits to others is examined in conjunction with benefits to oneself, it is associated with lower likelihood of alcohol use (Dieterich et al., 2013). Thus, there is a complex relation between perceived benefits to oneself and benefits to others, suggesting the need to investigate them as separate constructs within the same model. The limited literature among AI adolescents further suggests that greater perceived harm of marijuana use is associated with less use (Prince et al., 2017), greater perceived classmate marijuana use is associated with greater likelihood of use, and using marijuana in a group with friends is associated with more frequent use (Stanley et al., 2017).

Behavioral intentions have been identified as among the strongest predictors of substance use for adolescents (Conner & McMillan, 1999; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977; Pomery et al., 2009; Wolford & Swisher, 1986) and are an important target for intervention. Further, the social context of intentions to use may be differentially related to marijuana use and outcomes, warranting further exploration. For example, intentions to use marijuana with friends may be associated with different motives and consequences compared to using alone (Lee et al., 2007). Yet, to date, a dearth of research examines factors associated with intentions to use marijuana socially. It is important to specifically examine intentions to use marijuana with peers given that community and connection are particularly important in AI communities (Beauvais, 1992).

The present study explores the association of constructs based on TRA (i.e., perceived peer use, risks of marijuana use, benefits to oneself and others of marijuana use) with past-month use and intentions to use marijuana socially. Moreover, we examine the moderating effects of lifetime marijuana use on the relationship between TRA constructs and intentions to use marijuana socially. We hypothesized that perceived benefits to oneself and others and peer use would be positively associated with past-month use and intentions to use marijuana socially, while perceived risks would be negatively associated. Further, we hypothesized that lifetime marijuana use would moderate the relations between risks of marijuana use, benefits to oneself and others of marijuana use, and perceived peer use with intentions to use marijuana socially, such that the relationship would be stronger among those reporting lifetime marijuana use.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

This study consists of a secondary analysis of data collected between 2009 and 2013 for a larger epidemiologic study examining trends in substance use among AI adolescents. Participants were a subsample of students in Grades 7 to 12 who identified as American Indian (n = 3,498, 47.8% female) drawn from a larger sample of adolescents (n = 5,744) between the ages of 10–21 years old (M = 14.8; SD = 1.70). In the parent study, schools within the U.S. were stratified into six geographic regions (Northwest, Northern Plains, Northeast, Southeast, Southern Great Plains, and Southwest) and proportionately selected to match the percentage of AIs per geographic region reflected in the 2000 U.S. Census data (Snipp, 2005), making the sample representative of AI youth living on or near reservations across the U.S. Within those regions, schools were invited to participate if their student body was made up of at least 20% American Indian students. Research approval was obtained from appropriate university IRB, tribal authorities, and school boards prior to data collection. Specific tribes, communities, and reservations are not identified to protect their confidentiality. Adolescents and their parents were given the opportunity to decline participation; however, less than 1% of the sample declined. For further description of study procedures, see Stanley et al. (2014).

Measures

Participants were administered the American Drug and Alcohol Survey (ADAS)™, a measure that is well-validated for collecting adolescent substance use among AI youth (Oetting & Beauvais, 1990; Stanley et al., 2014).

Perception of peer use of marijuana was measured using one question assessing student’s perceptions of their peer group’s marijuana use (i.e., how many of their friends use marijuana). Participants rate the item on a four-point scale from 1 (none) to 4 (all of them).

Perceived risks of marijuana use were measured using two questions assessing participants beliefs regarding how much harm one might experience as a result of using marijuana. Participants rate each item on a four-point Likert-type scale from 1 (no harm) to 4 (a lot of harm). Scores on each item were summed to create a total score, with higher scores indicating greater perceived risks of marijuana use. Psychometric properties in the current sample were good (coefficient α = 0.88).

Perceived benefits to self from marijuana use were measured using three questions (e.g., using marijuana feels good). Participants rate their agreement with each item on a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores on each item were summed to create a total score reflecting beliefs in benefits of marijuana use to oneself, with higher scores indicating greater perceived benefits. Psychometric properties in the current sample were excellent (coefficient α = 0.98).

Perceived benefits to others from marijuana use were measured using three questions (e.g., using marijuana is fun for others). Participants rate their agreement with each item on a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores on each item were summed to create a total score reflecting endorsement of beliefs in benefits of marijuana use to others, with higher scores indicating greater perceived benefits to others. Psychometric properties in the current sample were excellent (coefficient α = 0.98).

Marijuana use was measured using one question assessing whether or not participants had used marijuana in their lifetime with response options of 0 (no) or 1 (yes). Past-month use was measured using one question assessing how frequently participants had used marijuana in the past month on a five-point scale from 1 (never) to 6 (several times daily).

Intentions to use marijuana socially was measured using two items assessing how often participants anticipated using marijuana socially in the next 30 days. Participants rated the items on a five-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 4 (10 or more times). Scores on the two items were summed to create a total score, with higher scores indicating more frequent intentions to use marijuana socially. Psychometric properties in the current sample were excellent (rs = 0.91).

Analytic Plan

All study analyses were conducted using SPSS v26.0. As recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2019), all variables of interest were assessed for assumptions of normality. Next, Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated between relevant study variables to explore their bivariate associations. Then, a series of multilevel linear regression models were utilized to account for the nesting of the data within schools (level two) and to evaluate the effects of gender, age, risks of marijuana use, benefits of marijuana use for oneself and others, and perception of peer use (level one) on past-month marijuana use and intentions to socially use marijuana in the coming month. First, we examined the effect of perceived peer use of marijuana, perceived benefits for oneself and others, and perceived risks on frequency of past-month marijuana use and on intentions to use marijuana socially in the next month. We controlled for the effects of age and gender in both models and controlled for intentions to use marijuana in the past-month use model while controlling for lifetime marijuana use in the model for intentions to use. Next, multilevel linear regression examined interactive effects of perceived peer use of marijuana, perceived benefits for oneself and others, and perceived risks by lifetime marijuana use for intentions to use marijuana socially. Continuous predictor variables were mean centered to aid in interpretation of parameter estimates and to lessen the correlation between the interaction term and its component variables. Following the methods described by Aiken, West, and Reno (1991), we followed up significant interactions with simple slopes analyses and plotted regression lines of differences in intentions to use marijuana socially in participants who reported lifetime marijuana use or not. Finally, supplemental analyses examined the interaction of benefits to self by to benefits to others. Results focus on level one variables only in the hopes of better understanding individual differences in intentions to socially use marijuana and past-month use.

Results

Frequencies of demographic variables and relevant study variables of interest are presented in Table 1. Of note, over 60% of the sample reported having tried marijuana in their lifetime and 36.1% reported having used any marijuana in the past month. Bivariate correlations are presented in Table 2; perception of peer marijuana use and perceived benefits to the self and others were significantly positively related to lifetime marijuana use, past-month frequency of marijuana use, and intentions to use marijuana socially in the coming month. Perceived risks were significantly negatively correlated with lifetime marijuana use, frequency of past-month marijuana use, and intentions to use marijuana socially in the coming month.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for demographic variables and marijuana use

M (SD) Range n (%)
Age 14.76 (1.70) 10 – 21
Gender
 Female 1672 (49.5%)
 Male 1708 (50.5%)
Grade
 7th 775 (22.2%)
 8th 728 (20.8%)
 9th 601 (17.2%)
 10th 521 (14.9%)
 11th 508 (14.5%)
 12th 365 (10.4%)
Lifetime marijuana use 2085 (60.5%)
Past-month marijuana use
 Never 2203 (63.9%)
 1–2 times 407 (11.8%)
 3–9 times 261 (7.6%)
 10–19 times 186 (5.4%)
 20+ times 389 (4.2%)
 Several times daily 243 (7.1%)
Perceived peer use 2.42 (0.97) 1 – 4
Perceived risks 5.09 (2.59) 2 – 10
Benefits to self 8.43 (4.71) 1 – 15
Benefits to others 10.51 (4.17) 1 – 15
Intentions to use marijuana socially 2.18 (2.93) 0 – 8
Open in a new tab

Note. Percentages are valid percentages to account for missing data.

Table 2.

Correlations among demographic variables, sociocultural variables, and lifetime and frequency of past-month marijuana use

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age -
2. Female gender .002 -
3. Perceived peer use .14** .04* -
4. Perceived risks −.11** .07** −.31** -
5. Perceived benefits to self .10** −.02 .52** −.45** -
6. Perceived benefits to others .17** .08** .48** −.31** .55** -
7. Lifetime marijuana use .17** .02 .54** −.36** .64** .43** -
8. Past-month marijuana use .16** −.04* .48** −.35** .60** .33** .48** -
9. Intentions to use marijuana socially .08** .001 .56** −.38** .72** .41** .56** .81** -
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .01

**

p < .001.

Results for the model estimating frequency of past-month marijuana use is presented in Table 3. The overall model was significant, F(7, 2950) = 839.85, p < .001. Greater intentions to use marijuana socially (b = .41, p < .001) and perception of peer marijuana use (b = .05, p = .04) were significantly positively associated with frequency of past-month marijuana use. Perceived benefits to others (b = −.01, p = .007) and perceived risks (b = −.02, p = .002) were significantly negatively associated with frequency of past-month marijuana use. Perceived benefits to oneself was not significantly associated with frequency of past-month marijuana use.

Table 3.

Multilevel linear regression model for frequency of past-month marijuana use

Parameter b SE t p 95% CI
Constant
Age 0.09 .01 8.69 <.001 [.07, .11]
Female gender −0.14 .03 −4.06 <.001 [−.20, −.07]
Male gender
Intentions to use marijuana socially 0.41 .01 47.52 <.001 [.39, .42]
Perceived peer use 0.05 .02 2.08 .038 [.003, .09]
Perceived benefits to self 0.01 .01 1.37 .170 [−.003, .02]
Perceived benefits to others −0.01 .01 −2.70 .007 [−.02, −.004]
Perceived risks of use −0.02 .01 −3.07 .002 [−.04, −.01]
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded typeface indicates fixed effects that were significant at the p < .05 level.

Results for the model assessing intentions to use marijuana socially are presented in Table 4. The overall model was significant, F(7, 2949) = 555.36, p < .001. Greater perceived peer use of marijuana (b = .74, p < .001) and perception of benefits to oneself (b = .35, p < .001) were associated with more intentions to use marijuana socially over the next month. Greater perceived benefits to others (b = −.03, p = .002) and greater risks of using marijuana (b = −.05, p = .001) were associated with less intentions to use marijuana socially over the next month.

Table 4.

Multiple linear regression models for frequency of intentions to use marijuana socially

Parameter b SE t p 95% CI
Constant
Age −0.03 .02 −1.22 .223 [−.07, .02]
Female gender 0.04 .08 0.58 .561 [−.10, .02]
Lifetime marijuana use 0.44 .10 4.32 <.001 [.24, .63]
Perceived peer use 0.74 .05 15.55 <.001 [.65, .84]
Perceived benefits to self 0.35 .01 30.79 <.001 [.32, .37]
Perceived benefits to others −0.03 .01 −3.14 .002 [−.06, −.01]
Perceived risks −0.05 .02 −3.35 .001 [−.08, −.02]
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded typeface indicates fixed effects that were significant at the p < .05 level.

The result of four moderation analyses are summarized in Table 5. In each model, the interactions of lifetime marijuana use by perceived peer use, perceived benefits to self, benefits to others, and perceived risks were significant (bs = .21, .42, .28, and −.38, respectively; ps < .001). As is depicted in Figure 1, analysis of simple slopes revealed that the effects of peer use and perceived benefits to oneself on intentions to use marijuana socially were stronger for those who had used marijuana in their lifetime than for those who had not. However, the effects of perceived benefits to others and perceived risks on intentions to use marijuana socially were significant only for those who had used marijuana in their lifetime.

Table 5.

Moderation analyses for frequency of intentions to use marijuana socially

Parameter b SE t p 95% CI
Model 1: Perceived Peer Use
  Constant
  Age −0.04 .02 −1.50 .134 [−.08, .01]
  Female gender −0.11 .08 −1.37 .170 [−.26, .05]
  Lifetime marijuana use 2.46 .10 25.02 <.001 [2.27, 2.65]
  Perceived peer use 0.21 .08 2.81 .005 [.07, .36]
  Lifetime marijuana use X perceived peer use 1.53 .10 15.57 <.001 [1.34, 1.72]
 Values of lifetime marijuana use Simple slopes
  Any lifetime use 1.74 .06 27.66 <.001 [1.62, 1.87]
  No lifetime use 0.21 .08 2.81 .005 [.07, .36]
Model 2: Perceived Benefits to Self
  Constant
  Age 0.01 .02 0.23 .818 [−.04, .05]
  Female gender 0.02 .07 0.30 .768 [−.11, .16]
  Lifetime marijuana use 1.78 .10 17.23 <.001 [1.58, 1.99]
  Perceived benefits to self 0.08 .02 4.00 <.001 [.04, .11]
  Lifetime marijuana use X perceived benefits to self 0.42 .02 19.46 <.001 [.38, .47]
 Values of lifetime marijuana use Simple slopes
  Any lifetime use 0.50 .01 44.92 <.001 [.48, .52]
  No lifetime use 0.08 .02 4.00 <.001 [.38, .47]
Model 3: Perceived Benefits to Other
  Constant
  Age −0.05 .03 −2.02 .043 [−.10, −.002]
  Female gender −0.16 .08 −1.84 .066 [−.32, .01]
  Lifetime marijuana use 2.84 .10 29.30 <.001 [2.65, 3.03]
  Perceived benefits to others 0.02 .02 1.34 .179 [−.01, .05]
  Lifetime marijuana use X perceived benefits to others 0.28 .02 12.35 <.001 [.24, .33]
 Values of lifetime marijuana use Simple slopes
  Any lifetime use 0.30 .02 18.28 <.001 [.27, .33]
  No lifetime use 0.02 .02 1.34 .179 [.01, .05]
Model 4: Perceived Risks
  Constant
  Age −0.04 .03 −1.70 .089 [−.09, .01]
  Female gender −0.01 .08 −0.17 .868 [−.18, .15]
  Lifetime marijuana use 3.01 .09 32.00 <.001 [2.83, 3.19]
  Perceived risks −0.02 .03 −0.73 .465 [−.07, .03]
  Lifetime marijuana use X perceived risks −0.38 .04 −10.90 <.001 [−.45, −.32]
 Values of lifetime marijuana use Simple slopes
  Any lifetime use −0.40 .02 −17.05 <.001 [−.45, −.36]
  No lifetime use −0.02 .03 −0.73 .465 [−.07, .03]
Model 5: Perceived Benefits to Others X Perceived Benefits to Self
  Constant
  Age −0.01 .02 −0.54 .589 [−.05, .03]
  Female gender 0.04 .07 0.52 .601 [−.10, .17]
  Lifetime marijuana use 0.51 .10 5.21 <.001 [.32, .71]
  Perceived peer use .0.71 .05 15.51 <.001 [.62, .80]
  Perceived risks −0.05 .02 −3.38 .001 [−.08, −.02]
  Perceived benefits to others 0.03 .01 2.42 .016 [.01, .05]
  Perceived benefits to self 0.31 .01 27.59 <.001 [.29, .33]
  Perceived benefits to others X benefits to self 0.03 .002 13.39 <.001 [.02, .03]
Values of perceived benefits to self Simple slopes
  High perceived benefits to self (+1 SD) 0.16 .02 8.89 <.001 [.12, .19]
  Low perceived benefits to self (−1 SD) −0.10 .01 −8.78 <.001 [−.13, −.08]
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded typeface indicates significance at the level p < .05.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Theory of Reasoned Action Constructs by Lifetime Marijuana Use Interactions Predicting Intentions to Use Marijuana Socially

Finally, as summarized in Table 5, the interaction of perceived benefits to others by perceived benefits to oneself was significant (b = .03, p < .001). As Figure 2 depicts, analysis of simple slopes revealed that the relationship between perceived benefits to others and intentions to use marijuana socially was significant and positive at high levels of perceived benefits to self (1 SD above the mean; b = .31, p < .001) and significant and negative at low levels of perceived benefits to self (1 SD below the mean; b = −.10, p < .001).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Perceived Benefits to Others by Perceived Benefits to Self Interaction Predicting Intentions to Use Marijuana Socially

Discussion

The present study was among the first to use the TRA to explore past-month marijuana use and intentions to use marijuana socially and to explore the moderating effects of lifetime marijuana use on the association between each TRA-related construct and intentions to use marijuana socially. The current study is noteworthy as it capitalizes on a large, nationally representative sample of reservation-based AI adolescents and offers important intervention implications for the prevention and reduction of AI marijuana use.

Consistent with expectations, greater perceived risks were associated with less marijuana use and intentions while greater perceived benefits to self from using marijuana were associated with more frequent marijuana use intentions. Surprisingly, greater perceived benefits to others from marijuana use were associated with less frequent past-month marijuana use and intentions to use marijuana socially. Consistent with other studies (Dieterich et al., 2013; Rimal & Real, 2005), these results suggest that there is a suppression effect when benefits to self and benefits to others from marijuana use are examined in the same model. While youth may recognize the negative effects of marijuana use for others, they may simultaneously believe they are less susceptible to these risks and that they are, therefore, receiving more benefits (Rimal & Real, 2005); thus, benefits to oneself appear to be more influential on intentions to use marijuana than benefits to others. These suggestions were further supported by our supplementary analyses that found that, among those who report low levels of benefits to oneself from marijuana use, greater benefits to others were associated with less frequent intentions to use marijuana socially; however, among those who reported high levels of benefits to oneself, greater benefits to others were associated with more frequent intentions to use marijuana socially.

Results further found that perceived benefits to oneself was significantly associated with greater intentions to use socially for adolescents who had and had not used marijuana in their lifetime, but that the association between perceived benefits to others and risks was significant only for those who endorsed lifetime marijuana use. Collectively, our results suggest that perceived benefits to others and risks may be effective components of treatment programs, but that perceived benefits to oneself may be useful in both treatment and prevention efforts. Specifically, interventions that provide youth with psychoeducational information to correct beliefs regarding the effects of marijuana use have been found to significantly impact adolescent’s intentions to use marijuana (Dvorak et al., 2018). Brief interventions such as motivational interviewing (MI) are also effective in reducing marijuana use intentions, behavior, and associated harm among non-AI populations (D’Amico et al., 2015; Walters et al., 2012) and may facilitate behavior change by having youth consider their reasons for using marijuana and the associated risks and benefits. MI has been found to be culturally acceptable (Novins et al., 2016; Venner et al., 2007) and has been adapted to be used for addressing marijuana use in AI populations (Foley et al., 2005; Venner et al., 2016). Therefore, such interventions may be especially useful as marijuana legalization spreads and national trends show changes in marijuana use norms and decreasing perceived risks as (Keyes et al., 2016; Pacek et al., 2015).

Our results also indicated that participants who perceived more of their peers to use marijuana reported more frequent past-month use and intentions to use marijuana socially, and that the association with intentions to use was significant for those who had and had not tried marijuana in their lifetime. These findings are consistent with previous research finding peer use is associated with greater rates of personal marijuana use in AI youth (Stanley et al., 2017). Interventions including the provision of normative feedback regarding peers’ actual levels of marijuana use may be useful (Blevins et al., 2018), as adolescents may overestimate friends’ use (Cox et al., 2019; Wolfson, 2000); however, a dearth of research has examined such interventions among AI youth. It may also be useful to implement interventions targeting youth’s social network (Valente et al., 2007) and peer group settings, as they have been found to be feasible and have strong retention rates among AI youth (Tingey et al., 2015). Furthermore, it is important to recognize that, in close-knit communities such as AI communities, peers may include family members that are similar in age, making avoidance of peers that are using marijuana difficult (e.g., because they may be at family gatherings). Encouraging youth to engage in alternative activities (e.g. sports, cultural activities) may provide a platform for youth to make friends who are not using marijuana or other substances (Spillane et al., 2020).

Our results should be considered within the context of the study’s limitations. Due to the correlational and cross-sectional nature of the present data, no conclusions can be made about temporal or causal relationships. Longitudinal studies should assess changes in perceptions of risks and benefits of marijuana use over time, especially before and after initiating marijuana use. Furthermore, our measure of perceived risks, benefits, and peer use do not specify over what time frame participants should respond (current vs. past beliefs); although we believe participants likely responded with current beliefs. Moreover, our sample included majority rural, reservation-based schools, so results may not be generalizable to urban AI youth. Future research should also include contextual variables, including school and family level environmental factors, as well as systemic racism and historical trauma, as they are related to marijuana-related health disparities in AI communities (Bombay et al., 2014; Evans-Campbell, 2008). Finally, data were collected between 2009 and 2013 by self-report surveys which may not reflect recent changes in use or accurately capture marijuana use behaviors (Brener et al., 2003); however, previous research has found good empirical support for using the ADAS to assess adolescent substance use (Wills & Cleary, 1997; Winters et al., 1990).

The present study provides useful information on AI adolescents’ marijuana use history and intentions to use marijuana socially through the combination of perception of risks, benefits to oneself and others, and peer use in a single model. As there is currently a lack of interventions specifically targeting marijuana use in AI youth, the present study’s results should be used to inform further development and adaptation of methods for preventing and reducing marijuana use among this population at high risk for marijuana use related disparities.

Public Health Significance:

The present study found that, among American Indian adolescents, greater perceptions of peer marijuana use and benefits to oneself from using marijuana are associated with more frequent intentions to use marijuana socially, while greater perceptions of risks and benefits to others from marijuana use are associated with less frequent past-month marijuana use and intentions to use marijuana socially. Further, results suggest that perceived peer use and benefits to oneself were significantly associated with intentions to use marijuana socially for adolescents who had and had not used marijuana in their lifetime, but that the association between perceived benefits to others and risks were significant only for those who endorsed lifetime marijuana use. Collectively, our results suggest that perceived benefits to others and risks may be effective components of treatment programs, but that perceived peer use and benefits to oneself may be useful in both treatment and prevention efforts.

Acknowledgments

Funding: This work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) grant R01DA003371.

APPENDIX.

Appendix A

Data Transparency Narrative: Publicly Available Dataset

The data reported in this manuscript were obtained from publicly available data, collected by Colorado State University’s Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research, and titled “Drug Use Among Young American Indians: Epidemiology and Prediction, 1993–2006 and 2009–2013.” Data can be found in the National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program (https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NAHDAP/studies/35062/summary). A bibliography of journal articles, working papers, conference presentations, and dissertations using the “Drug Use Among Young American Indians: Epidemiology and Prediction, 1993–2006 and 2009–2013” dataset is available at (https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NAHDAP/studies/35062/publications). The variables and relationships examined in the present article have not been examined in any previous or current articles, or to the best of our knowledge in any papers that will be under review soon.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data Availability: The data used in the present study is publicly available from the National Addiction & HIV Data Archive Program.

This paper is the accepted author manuscript and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. The final article will be available via its DOI: 10.1037/adb0000661

References

  1. Aiken LS, West SG, & Reno RR (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  2. Beauvais F. (1992). The consequences of drug and alcohol use for Indian youth. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 5(1), 32–37. 10.5820/aian.0501.1992.32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blevins CE, Walker DD, Stephens RS, Banes KE, & Roffman RA (2018). Changing social norms: The impact of normative feedback included in motivational enhancement therapy on cannabis outcomes among heavy-using adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 76, 270–274. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.08.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bombay A, Matheson K, & Anisman H. (2014). Appraisals of discriminatory events among adult offspring of Indian residential school survivors: The influences of identity centrality and past perceptions of discrimination. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(1), 75–86. 10.1037/a0033352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brener ND, Billy JOG, & Grady WR (2003). Assessment of factors affecting the validity of self-reported health-risk behavior among adolescents: Evidence from the scientific literature. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(6), 436–457. 10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00052-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Conner M, & McMillan B. (1999). Interaction effects in the theory of planned behavior: Studying cannabis use. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(2), 195–222. 10.1348/014466699164121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cox MJ, DiBello AM, Meisel MK, Ott MQ, Kenney SR, Clark MA, & Barnett NP (2019). Do misperceptions of peer drinking influence personal drinking behavior? Results from a complete social network of first-year college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 33(3), 297–303. 10.1037/adb0000455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. D’Amico EJ, Houck JM, Hunter SB, Miles JNV, Osilla KC, & Ewing BA (2015). Group motivational interviewing for adolescents: Change talk and alcohol and marijuana outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(1), 68–80. 10.1037/a0038155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dieterich SE, Stanley LR, Swaim RC, & Beauvais F. (2013). Outcome expectancies, descriptive norms, and alcohol use: American Indian and white adolescents. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 34(4), 209–219. 10.1007/s10935-013-0311-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dvorak RD, Raeder CA, Kramer MP, Sargent E, Stevenson BL, & Helmy M. (2018). Using deviance regulation theory to target marijuana use intentions among college students. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 26(1), 29–35. 10.1037/pha0000159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ehlers CL, Slutske WS, Gilder DA, & Lau P. (2007). Age of first marijuana use and the occurrence of marijuana use disorders in Southwest California Indians. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 86(2), 290–296. 10.1016/j.pbb.2006.07.024 (Adolescents, drug abuse and metal disorders) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans-Campbell T. (2008). Historical trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska communities: A multilevel framework for exploring impacts on individuals, families, and communities. Journal of interpersonal violence, 23(3), 316–338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fishbein M, & Ajzen I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fishbein ME (1967). Readings in attitude theory and measurement. [Google Scholar]
  15. Foley K, Duran B, Morris P, Lucero J, Jiang Y, Baxter B, Harrison M, Shurley M, Shorty E, Joe D, Iralu J, Davidson-Stroh L, Foster L, Mae-Gilene B, & Sonleiter N. (2005). Using motivational interviewing to promote HIV testing at an American Indian substance abuse treatment facility. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 37(3), 321–329. 10.1080/02791072.2005.10400526 (Faces of HIV/AIDS and Substance Abuse in Native American Communities) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Johnson L, O’Malley P, Bachman J, & Schulenberg J. (2006). Monitoring the future: National results on adolescent drug use. Overview of key findings 2005. NIH publication no. 06–5882. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). [Google Scholar]
  17. Keyes KM, Wall M, Cerdá M, Schulenberg J, O’Malley PM, Galea S, Feng T, & Hasin DS (2016). How does state marijuana policy affect us youth? Medical marijuana laws, marijuana use and perceived harmfulness: 1991–2014. Addiction, 111(12), 2187–2195. 10.1111/add.13523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lee CM, Neighbors C, & Woods BA (2007). Marijuana motives: Young adults’ reasons for using marijuana. Addictive Behaviors, 32(7), 1384–1394. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.09.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Novins DK, Croy CD, Moore LA, & Rieckmann T. (2016). Use of evidence-based treatments in substance abuse treatment programs serving American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 161, 214–221. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.02.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Oetting ER, & Beauvais F. (1990). Adolescent drug use: Findings of national and local surveys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58(4), 385–394. 10.1037/0022-006X.58.4.385 (Special Series: Alcohol and Drug Use Among Youth) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Pacek LR, Mauro PM, & Martins SS (2015). Perceived risk of regular cannabis use in the United States from 2002 to 2012: Differences by sex, age, and race/ethnicity. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 149, 232–244. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.02.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Pomery EA, Gibbons FX, Reis-Bergan M, & Gerrard M. (2009). From willingness to intention: Experience moderates the shift from reactive to reasoned behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 894–908. 10.1177/0146167209335166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Prince MA, Swaim RC, Stanley LR, & Conner BT (2017). Perceived harm as a mediator of the relationship between social norms and marijuana use and related consequences among American Indian youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 181, 102–107. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rimal RN, & Real K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: A test of the theory of normative social behavior. Communication Research, 32(3), 389–414. 10.1177/0093650205275385 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Snipp CM (2005). American Indian and Alaska Native children: Results from the 2000 census. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. [Google Scholar]
  26. Spillane NS, Kirk-Provencher KT, Schick MR, Nalven T, Goldstein SC, & Kahler CW (2020). Identifying competing life reinforcers for substance use in First Nation adolescents. Substance Use & Misuse, 55(6), 886–895. 10.1080/10826084.2019.1710206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Stanley LR, Harness SD, Swaim RC, & Beauvais F. (2014). Rates of substance use of American Indian students in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades living on or near reservations: Update, 2009–2012. Public Health Reports, 129(2), 156–163. 10.1177/003335491412900209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Stanley LR, & Swaim RC (2015). Initiation of alcohol, marijuana, and inhalant use by American-Indian and white youth living on or near reservations. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 155, 90–96. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.08.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Stanley LR, Swaim RC, & Dieterich SE (2017). The role of norms in marijuana use among American Indian adolescents. Prevention Science, 18(4), 406–415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tabachnick BG, & Fidell LS (2019). Using multivariate statistics, 7th. Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  31. Tingey L, Mullany B, Chambers R, Hastings R, Lee A, Parker A, Barlow A, & Rompalo A. (2015). Respecting the circle of life: One year outcomes from a randomized controlled comparison of an HIV risk reduction intervention for American Indian adolescents. AIDS Care, 27(9), 1087–1097. 10.1080/09540121.2015.1028879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Valente TW, Ritt-Olson A, Stacy A, Unger JB, Okamoto J, & Sussman S. (2007). Peer acceleration: Effects of a social network tailored substance abuse prevention program among high-risk adolescents. Addiction, 102(11), 1804–1815. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01992.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Venner KL, Feldstein SW, & Tafoya N. (2007). Helping clients feel welcome: Principles of adapting treatment cross-culturally. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 25(4), 11–30. 10.1300/J020v25n04_02 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Venner KL, Greenfield BL, Hagler KJ, Simmons J, Lupee D, Homer E, Yamutewa Y, & Smith JE (2016). Pilot outcome results of culturally adapted evidence-based substance use disorder treatment with a Southwest Tribe. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 3, 21–27. 10.1016/j.abrep.2015.11.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Walters ST, Lee CM, & Walker DD (2012). Brief interventions for marijuana use. In White HR & Rabiner DL (Eds.), College drinking and drug use. (pp. 184–202). Guilford Press. http://uri.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2012-07987-009&site=ehost-live&scope=site [Google Scholar]
  36. Wills TA, & Cleary SD (1997). The validity of self-reports of smoking: Analyses by race/ethnicity in a school sample of urban adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 87(1), 56–61. 10.2105/AJPH.87.1.56 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Winters KC, Stinchfield RD, Henly GA, & Schwartz RH (1990). Validity of adolescent self-report of alcohol and other drug involvement. International Journal of the Addictions, 25(sup11), 1379–1395. 10.3109/10826089009068469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Wolford C, & Swisher JD (1986). Behavioral intention as an indicator of drug and alcohol use. Journal of Drug Education, 16(4), 305–326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Wolfson S. (2000). Students’ estimates of the prevalence of drug use: Evidence for a false consensus effect. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14(3), 295–298. 10.1037/0893-164X.14.3.295 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES