ABSTRACT. Objective: Marijuana use can result in a variety of negative consequences, yet it remains popular among young adults and the general public at large. Combined with the growing empirical support for the benefits of medicinal marijuana as well as the steady increase in popular opinion regarding its legalization, it is of growing importance to identify strategies that may mitigate the harms related to marijuana use, reduce consumption levels, and limit resulting negative consequences among young adults who use marijuana. The purpose of this study was to develop and conduct initial psychometric analyses on a new scale, which we named the Protective Behavioral Strategies for Marijuana (PBSM) scale. Method: A sample of undergraduate college students who reported past-6-month marijuana use (n = 210) responded to the initial pool of PBSM items and completed measures of marijuana use, consequences from marijuana use, alcohol use, and protective behavioral strategies for alcohol. Results: Results from an iterative principal component analyses process yielded a single-factor structure with 39 items. The PBSM mean composite score negatively associated with marijuana use and consequences, with the strongest correlations evident for pastmonth users. The PBSM also significantly positively correlated with alcohol protective strategies. Conclusions: Protective behavioral strategies for marijuana appear to be a measurable construct that are related to marijuana frequency and consequences, and thus may be a useful component of intervention and prevention programs with young adults. More work testing the PBSM items with larger and more diverse samples of young adults is encouraged. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 77, 441-450, 2016)

Device‐type effects on cognitive tests appear to covary with whether unproctored internet‐based test (UIT) scores were obtained operationally or nonoperationally. The present study examined whether the testing environment and distractions therein—one of three contextual factors identified as plausible explanations—accounts for this covariation. Four‐hundred and twenty‐five college students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions which differed by the testing environment and device used to complete a cognitive test. Test scores did not differ between conditions despite greater distractions reported by those who tested in the distracting environment. Results were replicated within‐study, and suggest that the self‐selection and testing‐stakes hypotheses warrant subsequent empirical examination as explanations for the differences in device‐type effects observed in operational and nonoperational settings.

No abstract

No abstract