ArticlesEffects of Expectancies on Subjective Responses to Oral Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol
Section snippets
Subjects
Thirty-five healthy male (n = 19) and female (n = 16) volunteers [mean age (SD) = 23.5(4.3)] participated. The majority of subjects were Caucasian, single, undergraduate college students who were of normal weight. Table 1 summarizes the demographics and drug use histories of both subject groups. To be included in the experiment, subjects had to report (a) use of marijuana for at least 1 year, (b) use of marijuana at least 10 times in their lifetime, and (c) use of marijuana within the past 2
Results
Dependent measures were analyzed using separate three-way (dose × hour × group) mixed-factor analyses of variance (ANOVAs). For tests of within-subjects effects, Huynh-Feldt corrections were used to protect against violations of sphericity. The criterion for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Table 2 shows significant main effects and interactions for all dependent measures.
Discussion
As hypothesized, subjects who were told that they would receive a cannabinoid reported higher ratings on certain measures of subjective drug effects when they received oral Δ9-THC. Specifically, the informed group reported higher ratings on visual analog scales of “like” effects and “want more” drug, higher scores on the ARCI’s MBG scale, which measures euphoria, and a greater desire to take the drug again. Interestingly, the instructional conditions did not affect other qualitative measures of
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse Grants DA 03517 and T32 DA 07255. The authors thank Jeff Stolte for his assistance with the study.
References (14)
- et al.
The effects of orally administered Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol in man on mood and performance measuresA dose–response study
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
(1990) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(1994)- et al.
Discriminative stimulus and subjective effects of smoked marijuana in humans
Psychopharmacology (Berlin)
(1988) - et al.
Reinforcing and subjective effects of oral delta-9-THC and smoked marijuana in humans
Psychopharmacology (Berlin)
(1992) - et al.
Marihuana
SCL-90-R manual—II
(1983)- de Wit, H.; Kirk, J. M.; Justice, A.: Behavioral pharmacology of cannabinoids. In: Tarter, R. E.; Ammerman, R. T.; Ott,...
Cited by (85)
Placebo response in cocaine intake: A systematic review
2022, Psiquiatria BiologicaPatterns of cannabis use among individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder: Results from an internet survey
2021, Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related DisordersCitation Excerpt :Perhaps related to this recruitment strategy, participants were predominantly white, non-Hispanic, and highly educated, which may impact the sample's generalizability. Finally, expectancy bias (to which subjective cannabis effects are notoriously susceptible; see Chait et al., 1988; Fillmore, Mulvihill, & Vogel-Sprott, 1994; Kirk, Doty, & De Wit, 1998) may have affected our data. These survey results suggest that cannabis use may be associated with a range of positive and negative subjective effects in individuals with OCD, may be used instead of evidence-based OCD treatments, and may lead to problematic cannabis use and/or CUD.
Effect of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on frontostriatal resting state functional connectivity and subjective euphoric response in healthy young adults
2021, Drug and Alcohol DependenceCitation Excerpt :Sixth, we did not collect pharmacokinetic measures to support the effectiveness of the THC manipulation. Seventh, we did not measure drug expectancies, which are known to impact subjective drug response (e.g., Kirk et al., 1998) and may also impact neural activity. Eighth, we did not measure caffeine or tobacco use on the day of the drug administration visit.
A within-person comparison of the subjective effects of higher vs. lower-potency cannabis
2020, Drug and Alcohol DependenceCitation Excerpt :Balanced placebo designs are needed to address this question. Some cannabis administration studies have shown that cannabis expectancy effects are often in the same direction as pharmacological effects (Kirk et al., 1998), and expectancies operate in real life. Yet, expectancy effects for concentrates are difficult to study, because federal barriers currently prevent U.S. researchers from studying the effects of concentrates in the lab (Stith and Vigil, 2016; Piomelli et al., 2019; Vergara et al., 2017).
The Relevance of Placebo and Nocebo Mechanisms for Analgesic Treatments
2013, Placebo and Pain: From Bench to Bedside