


































Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

1 

 

Original Paper 

Risk Factors for Cannabis Use-Related Consequences in 

Emerging Adults 

Tamara Samardzic
1,2

, Berlyn Soulliere
1
, Sanya Sagar

1,3
 & Carlin J. Miller

1*
 

1
 Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada 

2
 Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 

3
 Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 

Canada 

*
 Carlin J. Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada 

 

Received: July 16, 2024         Accepted: July 25, 2024        Online Published: August 2, 2024 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v7n3p1                     URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v7n3p1 

 

Abstract 

Cannabis use in Canada is a public health concern, especially it has been legalized for medical and 

recreational use. Although widely used, it appears there are negative consequences for some, but not 

all, cannabis consumers, and it remains challenging to predict which individuals will experience 

difficulties. This study examines the role of several risk factors in predicting negative outcomes of 

cannabis use in university students with a particular focus on personality and mental health variables. 

Undergraduate students (N=370) enrolled in a southwestern Ontario university participated in an 

online study. Preliminary analyses suggested that higher stress and lower conscientiousness were 

associated with cannabis use. In follow-up analyses, perceived stress was significantly associated with 

functional consequences of cannabis use when the quantity of cannabis used was accounted for in the 

analyses. Agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly associated with overall GPA after 

controlling for amount of cannabis used. Individuals using low-to-moderate levels of cannabis had 

fewer functional consequences than individuals using higher amounts of cannabis, but these groups 

could not be differentiated in terms of their overall GPA. These results address a niche in the field of 

cannabis research in higher education and have significant implications in terms of policy and clinical 

practice.  

Keywords  

cannabis, undergraduates, academic consequences, functional consequences 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

1. Introduction  

With legalization, cannabis use has increased, and it is now the most used substance globally (United 

Nations Office of Drug and Crime, 2023). Survey data in Canada shows that 26% of the population 

over the age of 16 have consumed cannabis in the past 12 months (Statistics Canada, 2023) and 31% of 

students describe themselves as frequent cannabis users (Llewelyn-Williams & Mykota, 2023). Given 

the considerable proportion of the population reporting cannabis use, it is important that research 

identify who is at higher risk for poor outcomes.  

For many individuals who use cannabis recreationally, there are few, if any, consequences of their 

cannabis use. For example, some studies suggest that people who use cannabis recreationally 

demonstrate adequate academic achievement, maintain employment, have functional romantic 

relationships, and enjoy beneficial social interactions (Allen & Holder, 2014; Luba et al., 2019). 

Students may experiment with infrequent-to-regular cannabis use in high school or in post-secondary 

settings, but then moderate their use or desist entirely as they enter the workforce and other adult 

pursuits (Roussell & Omori, 2016). Most people who use cannabis are typically functioning individuals 

indistinguishable in the population from those who do not use cannabis (Ogborne & Smart, 2000). This 

pattern of non-problematic use and tendency toward desistance by adults supported efforts to legalize 

recreational cannabis consumption in many jurisdictions. 

A substantial body of research on recreational cannabis use has focused on the negative consequence 

and outcomes, particularly in emerging adults whose brains are not yet fully developed and who need 

full use of their cognitive functions to be successful in their academic work. Harmful consequences 

experienced by individuals who use cannabis include increased psychosis symptoms (Marconi, Di Forti, 

Lewis, Murray & Vassos, 2016), increased risk for mental health problems (Buckner et al., 2010; Faria 

et al., 2021), more frequent cognitive impairments such as memory and problem-solving deficits 

(Becker, Collins & Luciana, 2014), and increased likelihood of engaging in risky and/or illegal 

behaviours (e.g., intoxicated driving; Aston, Merrill, McCarthy & Metrik, 2016). The effect of cannabis 

use on academic achievement can vary; however, recent research has shown that cannabis use can 

negatively impact academic achievement (Reuter & Forster, 2021; Paramo et al., 2023). Since 

legalization, especially on university campuses, the normalization of cannabis use and the diminishing 

perception of risk has led to the rise in frequency of cannabis consumption (Buckner, 2013; Kilwen et 

al., 2020; Hallett & Chen, 2022). The accompanying potential for cognitive impairments, motivational 

effects, and mental health concerns associated with increased frequency of cannabis use could 

exacerbate these negative consequences.   

Although there are numerous harmful consequences that may arise from cannabis use, not every 

university student who uses cannabis experiences problematic outcomes. There are several theories to 

explain how people who report a problematic pattern of cannabis use might be separated from those 

who use cannabis but do not experience poor outcomes. It is likely that risk for poor outcomes exists on 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

multiple levels, including societal norms and expectations, community factors, relational factors, and 

individual differences (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). These levels have a high 

degree of interaction and are not independent of each other. For example, multiple risk factors may 

influence the initiation and continuation of cannabis use at a younger age (Von Sydow, Lieb, Pfister, 

Hofler & Wittchen, 2002), which increases the risk of problematic outcomes. Individuals who report 

frequent cannabis use tend to show higher negative emotionality (Volkow et al., 2014), which is likely 

related to decreased reward sensitivity and motivation, as well as increased stress reactivity in some 

individuals. Cannabis use is associated with subsequent increase in negative affect, especially when 

used for coping purposes and the individual meets diagnostic criteria for cannabis dependence (Ross et 

al., 2018). Relatedly, highly anxious individuals who are not currently receiving supportive treatment 

for their symptoms are at increased risk for academic problems (Wallis et al., 2019). Frequent cannabis 

use may also be the by-product of chronic stressors, including family dysfunction (Butters, 2002), 

negative life events (Siqueira, Diab, Bodian & Rolnitzky, 2001) and traumatic events (Houston, 

Murphy, Shevlin & Adamson, 2011). However, other research has failed to show a relationship 

between cannabis use and perceived stressful events (Siqueira et al., 2001; Vargas & Trujillo, 2012), 

especially in populations of individuals who are not substance dependent.  

Specific personality traits have also been identified as risk factors for cannabis use. In a study that used 

the five-factor model of personality, people who use cannabis scored higher on openness to experience 

and lower on agreeableness and conscientiousness in an epidemiological sample (Terracciano et al., 

2008). More recent studies have suggested that developmental stage and prolonged cannabis use over 

time influences personality developmental and mental health. For example, work by Jones and 

colleagues (2022) showed that while agreeableness and conscientious typically increase over the course 

of development, these personality traits decrease across development in people who use cannabis 

regularly (Jones et al., 2022). Likewise, emotional stability is typically assumed to increase from 

adolescence and into the young adult years, but it also decreases in both males and females who report 

regular cannabis use (Jones et al., 2022). It may also be that personality is both influenced by and 

influences cannabis use. In a meta-analysis, Winters and colleagues (2022) showed that neuroticism 

and openness to experience increased over time while conscientiousness and agreeableness decreased, 

albeit only among people who reported a problematic pattern of cannabis use (Winter et al., 2022).  

While researchers have investigated possible risk factors for cannabis use, most of the literature has 

focused solely on comparing those who use cannabis and those who do not. Furthermore, most of this 

research was conducted prior to legalization of recreational cannabis use. Very few studies have looked 

at differences among higher education students who use different amounts of cannabis. Thus, there is a 

gap in the empirical literature in terms of models for the intersection of cannabis use, academic 

achievement, and individual risk factors in post-secondary settings. With the changing politics and 

attitudes surrounding cannabis consumption, the most important question is no longer whether young 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

people will use cannabis. Attention needs to be shifted to what specific factors may predict negative 

outcomes and why certain people who use cannabis are at a heightened risk for experiencing them.  

Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate and identify possible risk factors that could 

contribute to the experience of negative consequences of cannabis use in a sample of university 

students in a jurisdiction where recreational use has been legalized for several years. It was 

hypothesized that:  

1) Higher levels of neuroticism, lower levels of conscientiousness, and greater perceived 

stress would be associated with greater number of the consequences from cannabis use 

and lower GPA after controlling for amount of cannabis used; 

2) Low-to-moderate use of cannabis would not be associated with increased 

cannabis-related consequences and lower GPA, but these relations would be significant 

for individuals using greater amounts of cannabis.  

 

2. Methods 

2.1 Participants  

Analyses included data from 370 university students between the ages of 19 and 25 years old. The age 

range was chosen to maximize the likelihood that the participants were in the emerging adult period 

and had not yet taken on substantial adult responsibilities such as parenting, home ownership, and 

full-time work in addition to their academic enrollment. Like the department where the research took 

place, most participants were Caucasian/European Canadian (70.8%), female (86.5%), and in their 

second (33.4%) or third year (30.0%) of undergraduate study. There were no specific exclusionary 

criteria for this study, except that only students who could legally use cannabis (aged 19 years and 

older) were allowed to participate, ensuring participants were not asked to disclose illegal activities 

during the research. Demographics are summarized in Table 1.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 1. Sample Demographics (N=370).  

Variable  n (%) M SD Range 

Age  

 

20.46 1.47 19-25 

Gender  

  

  

   Female  320 (86.5) 

 

  

   Male  45 (12.2) 

 

  

   Non-Binary  3 (0.8) 

 

  

    Male  1 (0.3) 

 

  

Race/Ethnicity  

  

  

   White or European Canadian  262 (70.8) 

 

  

   South Asian  26 (7.0) 

 

  

   Middle Eastern  26 (7.0) 

 

  

   Mixed Race 15 (4.1) 

 

  

   Black/African Canadian  18 (4.9) 

 

  

   Latinx 10 (2.7) 

 

  

   East Asian 11 (3.0) 

 

  

Year of Study  

  

  

   1st  27 (7.3) 

 

  

   2nd  123 (33.2) 

 

  

   3rd  111 (30.0) 

 

  

   4th  94 (25.4) 

 

  

   5th year of beyond  13 (3.5) 

 

  

 

2.2 Measures 

2.2.1 Demographics Questionnaire 

Participants were asked to provide their demographic and background information including race, 

gender, year of study, and overall GPA.   

2.2.2 Drug History Use Questionnaire 

The Drug Use History Questionnaire (DHUQ; Struble, 2019). The DHUQ is a 17-item self-report 

measure that assesses the consequences related to an individual’s cannabis use. Participants are 

required to answer either “yes” or “no” to questions about experiencing any of the consequences 

resulting from their cannabis use. A sample item is “[Because of my cannabis use, I have] missed 

school”. When responses are summed across items, higher scores reflect more consequences 

experienced.  

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

2.2.3 Cannabis Use Intensity Questionnaire 

The Cannabis Use Intensity Questionnaire (MUIQ; White, Labouvie & Papadaratsakis, 2005) is a 

self-report measure that assess the frequency of cannabis use over the past three years. Participants are 

asked to rate the frequency and quantity of cannabis use, as well as their frequency of inebriation on 

Likert scales. Because there were no population norms for this measure (White, Helen, personal 

communication, March 15
th

, 2020), a scoring solution based on participant reported data was used 

instead. A composite score of use intensity was calculated and then participants were grouped 

according to their use rate (non-use, low-moderate use rate, higher use rate). Collectively, 190 

participants (51.9%) reported previous cannabis use within the last three years. These participants were 

divided into two groups with 25.7% of the total sample reporting low to moderate use while 26.2% of 

the sample reported greater cannabis use. 

2.2.4 Big Five Inventory 

The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991) is a widely used 44-item self-report 

measure of five dimensions of personality (i.e., openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, 

agreeableness, and neuroticism). Participants are presented with a series of characteristics and are 

required to rate their degree of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 5 

(Agree strongly). John & Srivastava (1999) found the average internal consistency reliability among the 

five subscales was .83, and convergent and discriminant validity have been established.  

2.2.5 Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale 

The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS; Lovibond, S.H. & Lovibond, P.F., 1995) is a 

42-item self-report measure that assesses the feelings and experiences typically associated with 

symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. Participants were asked to rate how much a series of 

statements such as “I found it difficult to wind down” applied to them in the last week on a 4-point 

Likert scale ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much or most of the 

time). Separate scores are available for the three facets. The DASS has been shown to be reliable and 

valid (Lovibond, S.H. & Lovibond, P.F., 1995).  

2.3 Procedure 

Participants were recruited through a departmental research pool, which required that they were 

enrolled in at least one psychology course and permitted bonus points for their courses to be earned in 

compensation for their participation time. The study was conducted online, and recruitment included 

only participants over the age of 19 to prevent disclosure of illegal activity. Interested participants were 

required to sign up for the study and then provided a link to the online survey (hosted by Qualtrics with 

data housed on the university’s servers). After participants gave their informed consent to participate in 

the study, they were given access to the questionnaires.  

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

2.4 Data Analysis  

SPSS version 28 was used for all data analyses. Data were examined for missingness and were found to 

be missing completely at random. Because of the large size of the sample, missing data were not 

replaced or imputed. Prior to analyses, assumptions of independence of observations, homogeneity of 

variance, and normality were checked. Independence of observations was assumed for all variables. 

Normality plots were found to be slightly skewed, although these results were expected, and the skew 

and kurtosis values were found to be within the expected range of ±2 and ±3 respectively. The test for 

the assumption of homogeneity of variance was significant for several variables and was therefore 

corrected using Welch test F values as necessary. Descriptive statistics for all measures were calculated 

and are summarized in Table 2.  

 

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for All Measures 

 

Range M SD a 

Extraversion 9-35 22.57 5.40 .73 

Agreeableness 11-45 35.22 5.32 .76 

Conscientiousness 18-45 32.44 5.22 .84 

Neuroticism 8-38 25.73 6.22 .68 

Openness 17-47 33.48 5.70 .67 

Depression 7-28 12.81 4.79 .84 

Anxiety 7-28 12.43 4.61 .85 

Stress 7-28 14.32 4.60 .85 

Total cannabis use 1-19 4.09 3.84 .87 

Functional consequences 0-16 2.00 3.55 .90 

Overall GPA 53-100 78.27 9.48 - 

 

Preliminary correlational analyses for all variables of interest were conducted. Regression analyses 

using personality (all five facets of the BFI) and mental health variables (three subscales of DASS) 

after controlling for total cannabis use to predict functional consequences and overall GPA were 

conducted to test the first hypothesis. Two analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to test the 

second hypothesis. For these analyses, those using cannabis in the past three years were divided into 

two nearly equal sized groups (i.e., low-moderate use and higher use). The groups were used to test the 

impact of cannabis use on functional consequences. Those who had not used cannabis in the past three 

years were not included in the first ANOVA because the language of the measure clearly indicated 

consequences secondary to cannabis use specifically. For the ANOVA testing the impact of level of 

cannabis use on GPA, those indicating that they had not used cannabis were included in the analysis. 

Because there were three groups in this analysis, contrast analyses were completed.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

3. Result 

Results of correlational analyses were checked initially to ensure the variables of interest were within 

expectancy. Total cannabis use was correlated with functional consequences and with overall GPA. 

Cannabis use was negatively correlated with conscientiousness and positively correlated with stress. 

Likewise, functional consequences of cannabis use were negatively correlated with conscientiousness 

and positively correlated with stress. Overall GPA was positively correlated with conscientiousness. No 

other correlations were statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. The correlational analyses 

are summarized in Table 3.  

 

Table 3. Summary of Pearson Correlational Analyses 

 

Functional 

Consequences 

Overall  

GPA 

Total cannabis 

use 

Total cannabis use 

 

.65* 

(p<.001) 

-.24* 

(p<.001) 

- 

Extraversion 

  

.04 

(.41) 

<.01 

(.96) 

.11 

(.05) 

Agreeableness 

 

-.13 

(.02) 

.01 

(.83) 

-.08 

(.16) 

Conscientiousness 
-.21* 

(<.001) 

.23* 

(<.001) 

-.20* 

(<.001) 

Neuroticism 
.11 

(.03) 

-.06 

(.24) 

.13 

(.02) 

Openness 
.06 

(.25) 

.04 

(.45) 

.02 

(.65) 

Depression 
.05 

(.34) 

-.05 

(.36) 

.06 

(.24) 

Anxiety 
.10 

(.07) 

-.12 

(.02) 

.12 

(.02) 

Stress 
.21* 

(<.001) 

-.07 

(.22) 

.18* 

(<.001) 

Note. * Statistically significant after Bonferroni correction.  

 

The first hypothesis was partially supported. We hypothesized that individuals with higher levels of 

neuroticism, lower levels of conscientiousness, and greater perceived stress would report more 

functional consequences associated with cannabis use and a lower GPA after including the amount of 

cannabis used in the analyses. Although neuroticism and conscientiousness were not significantly 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

associated with the functional consequences of cannabis use after controlling for total cannabis use, 

perceived stress (p=.006) remained a significant predictor. Similarly, neuroticism was not significantly 

associated with GPA after controlling for total cannabis use, but agreeableness (p=.03) and 

conscientiousness (p<.001) were significant predictors. The regression analyses are summarized in 

Tables 4 and 5.  

 

Table 4. Regression Predicting Functional Consequences of Cannabis Use 

 Model 1 b* (p) Model 2 b* (p) Model 3 b* (p) 

Total cannabis use .652 (<.001)   

Total cannabis use  .637 (<.001)  

Extraversion  -.035 (.46)  

Agreeableness  -.067 (.17)  

Conscientiousness  -.050 (.32)  

Neuroticism  .017 (.70)  

Openness  .086 (.06)  

Total cannabis use   .622 (<.001) 

Extraversion   -.056 (.24) 

Agreeableness   -.059 (.22) 

Conscientiousness   -.054 (.29) 

Neuroticism   -.037 (.52) 

Openness   .076 (.10) 

Depression   -.095 (.15) 

Anxiety   -.066 (.31) 

Stress   .218 (.006) 

Adj. R
2
 .425 .430 .439 

F 230.21  40.22 28.16 

DR
2 

.425 .016 .015 

DF (p) 230.21 (.0001) 1.70 (.13) 2.70 (.05) 

Note. * Standardized Coefficient b. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 5. Regression Predicting Overall GPA 

 Model 1 b* (p) Model 2 b* (p) Model 3 b* (p) 

Total cannabis use -.244 (<.001)   

Total cannabis use  -.208 (<.001)  

Extraversion  -.032 (.59)  

Agreeableness  -.132 (.03)  

Conscientiousness  .239 (<.001)  

Neuroticism  -.016 (.78)  

Openness  .033 (.58)  

Total cannabis use   -.204 (<.001) 

Extraversion   -.028 (.65) 

Agreeableness   -.133 (.03) 

Conscientiousness   .242 (<.001) 

Neuroticism   .005 (.94) 

Openness   .025 (.67) 

Depression   .021 (.83) 

Anxiety   -.121 (.16) 

Stress   -.049 (.56) 

Adj. R
2
 .056 .089 .088 

F 19.10 5.96 4.23 

DR
2 

.059 .048 .007 

DF (p) 19.10 (<.001) 3.20 (.008) 0.79 (.50) 

Note. * Standardized Coefficient b. 

 

The second hypothesis was also partially supported. We had hypothesized that low-to-moderate 

cannabis use would not be associated with more functional consequences and lower GPAs, but these 

relations would be significant for individuals at higher levels of cannabis use.  

The ANOVA for group differences between people who use low-moderate amounts and those who use 

greater amounts on functional consequences was statistically significant (F(1,184)=32.28, p<.001) with a 

large-sized effect  (h
2
=.149). Likewise, the ANOVA for group differences among people who do not 

use cannabis, those who use low-moderate amounts, and those who use higher amounts on overall GPA 

was statistically significant (F(2, 337)=14.16, p<.001) with a medium-sized effect (h
2
=.078). Follow-up 

groupwise comparisons showed that those who do not use cannabis could be separated from those 

using cannabis on overall GPA but there were not statistically significant differences between those 

using at the low-moderate level and those using at a higher level. Group descriptive statistics for the 

ANOVA tests are summarized in Table 6.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 6. Group Descriptive Statistics for Functional Consequences of Cannabis Use and GPA 

  Functional 

consequences 

  Overall GPA  

Cannabis use group Mean SD Range Mean SD Range 

Non-use 

(n=172) 
- - - 80.95 9.22 63-100 

Low-moderate use 

(n=93) 
1.77 2.76 0-15 76.25 9.92 53-100 

Higher use  (n=97) 4.88 4.45 0-16 75.22 8.07 57-93 

 

4. Discussion/Conclusions 

This present study investigated the personality and mental health factors that portend risk for functional 

and academic consequences associated with cannabis use in university students. The study used 

concurrent data from undergraduate students enrolled at a comprehensive university in Southwestern 

Ontario. Results suggest that some personality factors (namely conscientiousness and agreeableness) 

and self-reported stress are associated with functional difficulties related to cannabis use when cannabis 

consumption is included in the analyses. Contrary to expectation, neuroticism was not associated with 

lower academic achievement or functional difficulties.  

Although there is a substantial literature on the impact of personality and mental health on cannabis use 

and on the outcomes associated with cannabis use, the literature is far from conclusive. Some studies 

have shown that when adolescents and emerging adults experience high levels of stress, they are more 

likely to use cannabis (Clendennen et al., 2021). In contrast, other studies have suggested that the 

relation between stress and cannabis use is moderated by other variables, such as emotional reactivity 

(Cavalli & Cservenka, 2021) or perceptions of risk associated with cannabis use (Chadi et al., 2020). 

Relatedly, the direction-of-effects are also unclear; does the regular use of cannabis lead to enhanced 

stress or does greater levels of stress overall predict a greater likelihood of using cannabis to cope? It 

may also be that these data relations are iterative.  

The role of personality and cannabis use is also complicated in the literature. As previously described, 

there are some studies (Allen & Holder, 2013; Dash et al., 2019; Winters et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2022) 

that have connected lower levels of agreeableness and lower levels conscientiousness to more cannabis 

use and consequences of use. Nevertheless, our results suggesting that individuals who are less 

agreeable and less conscientiousness are also more likely to experience lower GPAs if they use 

cannabis may align with longitudinal studies showing these relations hold over time. Notably, we had 

not hypothesized that agreeableness would be a significant factor in our analyses. Contrary to what we 

hypothesized, neuroticism was unrelated to cannabis use functional outcomes and GPA in our sample. 

The literature has been equivocal on this intersection with some studies suggesting a strong connection 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

(Winters et al., 2022; Lee-Winn et al., 2018) and others finding no relation (Terracciano et al., 2008). It 

may be that our sample, made up largely of psychology majors, was somewhat more emotionally stable 

due to substantial coursework in mental health and access to multiple levels of healthcare on campus.  

The second set of analyses examined the differences between those who do not use cannabis, those 

who use low-to-moderate levels of cannabis, and those who are using greater amounts of cannabis. Our 

results indicated that there are significant differences in functional consequences (e.g., missing class 

after using cannabis) among those using lower levels of cannabis and those using higher levels of 

cannabis. The measure of functional consequences reflects a range of behaviors from having difficulty 

concentrating through not being able to stop using cannabis, but there are more items reflecting 

significant difficulty. Those with lower reported rates of cannabis use not only endorsed significantly 

fewer items than those reporting greater usage, but their endorsements were also on less severe items, 

like memory lapses. Notably, all three groups reported fairly low levels of functional consequences of 

cannabis use, as would be expected in a sample of students currently enrolled in university courses.  

The related analysis focused on GPA had slightly different results. Those who reported not using 

cannabis had higher GPAs than those using cannabis at any level. Furthermore, those using cannabis at 

lower levels and higher levels were not statistically separable in terms of GPA. It may be that academic 

performance, as indicated by overall GPA, may be more sensitive to cannabis use at any level. This is 

in line with some other studies (Martinez et al., 2015). It may also be that individuals who are using 

cannabis are less engaged overall in academic endeavours, including attending study groups, preparing 

in advance of lectures, and seeking assistance from faculty, than those who do not use cannabis (Arria 

et al., 2015).  

The most notable limitation in our study is the use of cross-sectional data. Although true random 

assignment is not possible with this research question, a quasi-experimental design with longitudinal 

data collection would have allowed us to posit directions of effects in our data. Because our 

participants are largely Caucasian/European Canadian females, generalizations to people of colour, 

males, and non-university student populations are less likely to be valid. This is particularly concerning 

with ongoing issues related to the historical use of data from white participants being inappropriate 

applied to racialized populations (Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2010).  

The current study, despite the limitations, helps extend the existing research concerning consequences 

of cannabis use in a new direction. While the consequences of potential cannabis use and abuse among 

emerging adults are not always substantial, it appears that pre-existing factors may increase the 

likelihood of these consequences occurring. Theses results highlight the importance of adapting current 

cannabis use prevention and intervention tactics to reflect these individualized differences. It is 

important for students, parents, educators, law enforcement and health professionals to recognize that 

the chances of experiencing negative consequences related to cannabis use are not the same for every 

person who uses it. This research exemplifies the importance of tailoring the approach taken towards 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

prevention, intervention, and treatment to focus on those individuals who are at an increased risk of 

suffering negative consequences and limit the inappropriate generalization of those consequences to 

every individual.  

The results of this study have implications within the cannabis use field and help identify possible risk 

factors for negative consequences related to cannabis use in university students. These predictors are 

important for identifying individuals who could be more susceptible to the potential harmful outcomes 

that accompany cannabis use. The results highlight the importance of shifting the focus towards 

modified clinical practices and policy changes, particularly in higher education settings, to help combat 

the potential and observed negative consequences of cannabis use in at-risk individuals. There may be 

impacts on university policies and practices in the provision of medical and mental health care, 

opportunities for drug-free events on campus, and the communication that occurs at higher stress points 

in the academic year, such as during exams. Future studies should expand on risk factor research by 

replicating the current results with a larger sample size, and shifting focus to other potential risk factors, 

such as the motivation to use cannabis. Additionally, it will be important to identify potential protective 

factors, such as the influence of strong social supports, against the more negative consequences of 

cannabis use. 

 

References  

Allen, J., & Holder, M. D. (2013). Marijuana use and well-being in university students. Journal of 

Happiness Studies, 15(2), 301-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9423-1 

Arria, A. M., Caldeira, K. M., Bugbee, B. A., Vincent, K. B., & O’Grady, K. E. (2015). The academic 

consequences of marijuana use during college. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29(3), 564-575. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000108 

Aston, E. R., Merrill, J. E., McCarthy, D. M., & Metrik, J. (2016). Risk factors for driving after and 

during cannabis use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 77(2), 309-316. 

https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2016.77.309 

Becker, M. P., Collins, P. F., & Luciana, M. (2014). Neurocognition in college-aged daily cannabis 

users. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 36(4), 379-398. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2014.893996  

Buckner, J. D. (2013). College cannabis use: The unique roles of social norms, motives, and expectancies. 

Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74(5), 720-726. 

https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2013.74.720 

Buckner, J., Ecker, A., & Cohen, A. S. (2010). Mental health problems and interest in cannabis 

treatment among cannabis-using college students. Addictive Behaviours, 35(9), 826-833. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.04.001 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9423-1
https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000108
https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2016.77.309
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2014.893996
https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2013.74.720
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.04.001


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Butters, J. D. (2002). Family stressors and adolescent cannabis use: A pathway to problem use. Journal 

of Adolescence, 25(6), 645-654. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2002.0514 

Cavalli, J. M., & Cservenka, A. (2021). Emotion dysregulation moderates the association between stress 

and problematic cannabis use. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.597789 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). The social-ecological model: A framework for 

prevention. Retrieved from 

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/publichealthissue/socialecologicalmodel.html?CDC_AA

_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fviolenceprevention%2Foverview%2Fsocial-ecolog

icalmodel.html 

Chadi, N., Levy, S., & Weitzman, E. R. (2020). Moving beyond Perceived Riskiness: Marijuana-Related 

Beliefs and Marijuana use in Adolescents. Substance Abuse, 41(3), 297-300. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2019.1635972 

Clendennen, S. L., Case, K. R., Sumbe, A., Mantey, D. S., Mason, E. J., & Harrell, M. B. (2021). Stress, 

dependence, and covid-19-related changes in past 30-day marijuana, electronic cigarette, and 

cigarette use among youth and young adults. Tobacco Use Insights, 14, 1179173X2110674. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X211067439 

Dash, G. F., Slutske, W. S., Martin, N. G., Statham, D. J., Agrawal, A., & Lynskey, M. T. (2019). Big 

Five personality traits and alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, and gambling disorder comorbidity. 

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 33(4), 420-429. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000468 

Faria, L. D., Mezey, L., & Winkler, A. (2021). Cannabis legalization and college mental health. Current 

Psychiatry Reports, 23(4), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-021-01231-1 

Ford, C. L., & Airhihenbuwa, C. O. (2010). The public health critical race methodology: Praxis for 

antiracism research. Social Science & Medicine, 71(8), 1390-1398. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.030 

Hallett, A., & Chen, S.-P. (2022). Perceptions and attitudes of university and college students towards 

cannabis use. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 21(5), 3103-3122. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00777-2 

Houston, J. E., Murphy, J., Shevlin, M., & Adamson, G. (2011). Cannabis use and psychosis: re-visiting 

the role of childhood trauma. Psychological Medicine, 41(11), 2339-2348. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711000559 

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical 

perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research 

(pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.  

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2002.0514
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.597789
https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2019.1635972
https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X211067439
https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000468
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-021-01231-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.030
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00777-2
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711000559


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/t07550-000 

Jones, S. A., Van Fossen, R. P., Thompson, W. K., Baker, F. C., Clark, D. B., & Nagel, B. J. (2022). 

Developmental trajectories of Big Five personality traits among adolescents and young adults: 

Differences by sex, alcohol use, and marijuana use. Journal of Personality, 90(5), 748-761. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12694 

Kilwein, T. M., Wedell, E., Herchenroeder, L., Bravo, A. J., & Looby, A. (2020). A qualitative 

examination of college students’ perceptions of cannabis: Insights into the normalization of 

cannabis use on a college campus. Journal of American College Health, 70(3), 733-741. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1762612 

Lee-Winn, A. E., Mendelson, T., & Johnson, R. M. (2018). Associations of personality traits with 

marijuana use in a nationally representative sample of adolescents in the United States. Addictive 

Behaviors Reports, 8, 51-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2018.06.005 

Llewelyn-Williams, J., & Mykota, D. (2023). Predictors of cannabis use among Canadian university 

students. Cannabis, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.26828/cannabis/2023/000160 

Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd ed.). 

Sydney: Psychology Foundation. https://doi.org/10.1037/t01004-000 

Luba, R. R., Earleywine, M., Melse, B., & Gordis, E. B. (2019). Savoring moderates the link between 

marijuana use and marijuana problems. Substance Use & Misuse, 55(2), 291-295. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1666145 

Marconi, A., Di Forti, M., Lewis, C. M., Murray, C. M., & Vassos, E. (2016). Meta-analysis of the 

association between the level of cannabis use and risk of psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 42(5), 

1262-1269. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbw003 

Martinez, J. A., Roth, M. G., Johnson, D. N., & Jones, J. A. (2015). How robustly does cannabis use 

associate to college grades? Findings from two cohorts. Journal of Drug Education, 45(1), 56-67. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0047237915596606 

Ogborne, A. C., & Smart, R. G. (2000). Cannabis users in the general Canadian population. Substance 

Use & Misuse, 35(3), 301-311. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826080009147698 

Páramo, M. F., Cadaveira, F., & Rodríguez, M. S. (2023). A 2-year follow-up of the effects of combined 

binge drinking and cannabis consumption on academic performance and adjustment in Spanish 

third-year university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1223597 

Reuter, P. R., & Forster, B. L. (2021). Student health behavior and academic performance. PeerJ, 9. 

https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11107 

https://doi.org/10.1037/t07550-000
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12694
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1762612
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2018.06.005
https://doi.org/10.26828/cannabis/2023/000160
https://doi.org/10.1037/t01004-000
https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1666145
https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbw003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047237915596606
https://doi.org/10.3109/10826080009147698
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1223597
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11107


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Ross, C. S., Brooks, D. R., Aschengrau, A., Siegel, M. B., Weinberg, J., & Shrier, L. A. (2018). 

Positive and negative affect following cannabis use in naturalistic settings: An ecological 

momentary assessment study. Addictive Behaviours, 76, 61-67. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.07.020  

Roussell, A., & Omori, M. (2016). Normalising desistance: Contextualising marijuana and cocaine use 

careers in young adults. Sociology of Health & Illness, 38(6), 916-938. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12421 

Siqueira, L., Diab, M., Bodian, C., & Rolnitzky, L. (2001). The relationship of stress and coping methods 

to adolescent marijuana use. Substance Abuse, 22(3), 157-166. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08897070109511455 

Statistics Canada. (2023). Canadian Cannabis Survey 2023: Summary. Retrieved from 

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/research-data/canadi

an-cannabis-survey-2023-summary.html#s2 

Struble, C. A., Ellis, J. D., Carincross, M., Lister, J. J., & Lundahl, L. H. (2019). Demographic, 

cannabis use, and depressive correlates of cannabis use consequences in regular cannabis users. 

American Journal on Addictions, 28(4), 295-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.12889 

Terracciano, A., Loeckenhoff, C., Crum, R., Bienvenu, O., & Costa, P. (2008). Five-factor model 

personality profiles of drug users. BMC Psychiatry, 8(1), 22. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-8-22 

United Nations Office of Drug and Crime. (2023). World Drug Report 2023. Retrieved from 

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Exsum_wdr2023.html 

Vargas, C., & Trujillo, H. M. (2011). Cannabis consumption by female psychology students: The 

influence of perceived stress, coping and consumption of drugs in their social environment. 

Universitas Psychological, 11(1), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy11-1.ccfp 

Volkow, N. D., Wang, G.-J., Telang, F., Fowler, J. S., Alexoff, D., Logan, J., Jayne, M., Wong, C., & 

Tomasi, D. (2014). Decreased dopamine brain reactivity in marijuana abusers is associated with 

negative emotionality and addiction severity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of 

the United States of America, 111(30), E3149-56. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1411228111 

Von Sydow, K., Lieb, R., Pfister, H., Hofler, M., & Wittchen, H.-U. (2002). What predicts incident use 

of cannabis and progression to abuse and dependence? A 4-year prospective examination of risk 

factors in a community sample of adolescents and young adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 

68(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00102-3 

Wallis, A. L., Gretz, D. P., Rings, J. A., & Eberle, K. M. (2019). Assessing marijuana use, anxiety, and 

academic performance among college students. Journal of College Counseling, 22(2), 125-137. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.12125 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.07.020
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12421
https://doi.org/10.1080/08897070109511455
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.12889
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-8-22
https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy11-1.ccfp
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1411228111
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00102-3
https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.12125


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

White, H. R., Labouvie, E. W., & Papadaratsakis, V. (2005). Changes in substance use during the 

transition to adulthood: A comparison of college students and their noncollege age peers. Journal 

of Drug Issues, 35(2), 206-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204260503500204 

Winters, A. M., Malouff, J. M., & Schutte, N. S. (2022). The association between the five-factor model of 

personality and problem cannabis use: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 

193, 111635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111635 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1177/002204260503500204
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111635

