Examines how explicit and implicit harm perceptions influence cannabis use in sexual minority and heterosexual college students, suggesting dual approaches for public health...
BACKGROUND: Sexual minority adults have higher rates of cannabis use, relative to heterosexual adults, possibly attributed to lower harm perceptions. Although prior research has typically used self-report (i.e., explicit) measures to capture cannabis harm perceptions, implicit cognitions can also be examined. This study examined associations between implicit and explicit cannabis harm perceptions and the associations with cannabis use outcomes (likelihood of any past 30-day cannabis use, past 30-day cannabis frequency, problematic use), as well as differences based on sexual identity (sexual minority vs. heterosexual). METHODS: Participants were 254 college students who completed a laboratory session to examine cannabis use behavior (any past 30-day use, frequency, and the Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test-Revised), explicit cannabis harm perceptions, and implicit harm perceptions using an Implicit Association Test. Sexual minority participants were more likely to use cannabis and held lower implicit cannabis harm perceptions than heterosexual individuals. Those with lower explicit cannabis harm perceptions were more likely to use cannabis. Heterosexual participants with higher implicit cannabis harm perceptions had a higher probability of CUD. The association between implicit cognitions and CUD was not significant for sexual minority participants. CONCLUSIONS: Implicit and explicit cognitions may be complementary measures to examine harm perceptions of cannabis. Public health messaging should provide factual knowledge about the harms of cannabis from reliable and relatable sources which may impact implicit and explicit harm perceptions and ultimately prevent cannabis initiation and escalation to problematic use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ehlke et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: