Exploring the Relationship Between ADHD Symptoms and Daily Cannabis Consequences in Emerging Adulthood: The Role of Cannabis Motives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research has documented the relationship between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and increased cannabis use, but the studies largely rely on cross-sectional or longitudinal designs. Few studies have examined the impact of recent (i.e., past 6 months) ADHD symptoms on more proximal cannabis-related factors. The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between cannabis use motives (coping, boredom, and sleep) and consequences and the impact of ADHD symptoms on these relationships. METHOD: Participants were 62 emerging adults (ages 19-25 years; M = 22.12, SD = 2.07; 60% male) who used cannabis regularly (two or more times in the past 2 weeks) and completed a screener assessing past-6-months ADHD symptoms at baseline followed by 14 daily reports on cannabis use, consequences, and motives. RESULTS: Across the 14 days, cannabis consequences were higher for participants with greater past-6-months symptoms of ADHD. In addition, on days when participants used cannabis for boredom and on days when they used cannabis for sleep, cannabis consequences were higher. Although greater past-6-months ADHD symptoms were associated with more consequences on days when sleep motives were endorsed, contrary to hypotheses, the strength of this relationship was greater on days when sleep motives were not endorsed. Overall, greater daily consequences for those with higher ADHD symptoms may reflect exacerbation of these symptoms, and follow-up analyses revealed that the cannabis consequences associated with higher ADHD scores were indeed ones that overlap with ADHD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that ADHD symptoms, along with sleep and boredom motives, contribute to increased daily cannabis consequences and should be considered in developing interventions for emerging adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".