1 Executive Summary

1.1 Revolutionary Framework: ALL Mechanisms Are Potentially Bidirectional

Key Insight: Population-level research showing a mechanism “predicts more use” does NOT mean it works that way for every individual. Your idiographic EMA approach reveals that the SAME mechanism can be:

  • Protective for some individuals (higher levels → LESS use)
  • Risk for other individuals (higher levels → MORE use)
  • Unrelated for still others

This validates the necessity of idiographic assessment before intervention.

1.2 Updated Framework: Bidirectionality Likelihood Ratings

Rather than classifying mechanisms as simply “unidirectional” or “bidirectional,” mechanisms are now rated on likelihood of bidirectional relationships:

  • HIGHLY LIKELY Bidirectional - Strong evidence/theory suggesting substantial individual variation in direction
  • MODERATELY LIKELY Bidirectional - Some evidence of variation; moderators identified
  • LESS LIKELY but POSSIBLE Bidirectional - Generally works one direction but exceptions exist
  • NOT APPLICABLE - Not a psychological mechanism (e.g., time of day, day of week)
Distribution of Bidirectionality Likelihood
Bidirectionality Likelihood # Mechanisms Examples
Highly Likely 4 Stress, Anxiety, Calm, Positive Emotions
Moderately Likely 13 Craving, Bored, Irritable, Interpersonal Conflict
Less Likely but Possible 11 Sleep, Relaxation, Depression, Headache
Not Applicable 2 Time of Day, Day of Week (contextual cues)

1.3 Implications for Study Design

1.3.2 For Second Study (Innovation):

Choose HIGHLY LIKELY Bidirectional mechanism to demonstrate: 1. Individual variation in directional relationships 2. Value of idiographic assessment 3. Necessity of tailored intervention based on direction

Top Recommendation: #29 Positive Emotions or #13 Calm - Requires 1-2 week EMA screening to determine direction - Demonstrates protective factor enhancement innovation - Tests directional tailoring

1.4 Recommendations for Mechanism Refinement

1.4.1 Drop These Mechanisms (Not Psychological):

  • #26 Time of Day - Contextual cue, not mechanism
  • #27 Day of Week - Contextual cue, not mechanism

1.4.2 Drop or Reconceptualize These (Unclear/Too Vague):

  • #24 Wanting to Be Active - Mechanism may be mis-specified
  • #16 Wanting to Feel Better - Too vague; better to target specific distress

1.4.3 Combine These (Redundant/Overlapping):

  • #11 Wanting to Unplug + #12 Wanting to Forget Problems → Single “Avoidance/Escapism” mechanism
  • #6 Wanting to Be High + #21 Wanting to Change Perception → Single “Enhancement/Altered Consciousness” mechanism

Refined mechanism list: 24 distinct mechanisms (down from 30)


2 VERY HIGH Promise Mechanisms

2.1 #7 Wanting to Sleep ⭐ TOP PICK

Overall Rating: VERY HIGH - TOP RECOMMENDATION
Bidirectionality Likelihood: LESS LIKELY BUT POSSIBLE
Type: Generally Unidirectional Risk (wanting sleep → use is robust)

2.1.1 Evidence Base

Sleep is the top reason for cannabis use, both medical and recreational (Babson et al., 2017). Withdrawal insomnia is the most distressing withdrawal symptom and a major barrier to quitting. Vicious cycle: use for sleep → tolerance → withdrawal insomnia → more use. Cannabis suppresses REM sleep; withdrawal causes REM rebound and nightmares (Gates et al., 2014).

2.1.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

General pattern: Wanting to sleep/sleep problems → cannabis use is very robust

Evidence for bidirectional relationships: - Sleep context: Wanting to sleep for relaxation → use; wanting to sleep before performance task (important meeting, exam) → less use (fear of grogginess, oversleeping) - Knowledge of consequences: Those aware cannabis disrupts sleep architecture may avoid using when quality sleep is important - Timing: Wanting to sleep early evening vs. at bedtime - different patterns - Dependence awareness: Wanting to sleep triggers recognition of dependence (“I shouldn’t need cannabis”) → less use for some

2.1.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use (sleep aid/dependence):

  • “I can’t fall asleep without cannabis - I need it”
  • “Cannabis is the only thing that helps me sleep”
  • “I have insomnia and this is my medicine for it”
  • “I want to sleep and cannabis is the fastest way to get there”
  • “I can’t face another night of lying awake - I have to use”
  • Automatic: “Time for bed = time to use - it’s part of my routine”

Path to LESS use (performance/awareness):

  • “I want to sleep, but I have an important morning - cannabis will make me groggy”
  • “I want to sleep, but I’m trying to prove I can sleep without cannabis”
  • “Cannabis makes me fall asleep fast but the quality is poor - I wake up unrefreshed”
  • “I’m dependent on cannabis for sleep and I hate that - I won’t use tonight”
  • “I want to sleep but it’s too early - if I use now I’ll be wrecked tomorrow”
  • “I’ll use other sleep strategies first (sleep hygiene, relaxation) and only use if desperate”
  • Counter-motivation: “Using for sleep is keeping me dependent - I need to break this pattern”

2.1.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Brief Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (Brief-BTI)
    • Protocol: 1-2 sessions, 25-45 minutes each
    • Components: Sleep restriction, stimulus control, sleep hygiene, cognitive component
    • Effect size: d = 0.8-1.2 for insomnia severity (VERY LARGE)
    • Delivery: Moderate - needs initial consultation but can be app-supported
  2. Digital CBT-I
    • Examples: Sleepio, SHUTi
    • Effect size: d = 0.7-0.9 (LARGE)
    • Delivery: Excellent - fully smartphone-based
  3. Sleep Restriction Therapy
    • Effect size: d = 0.9-1.1 for insomnia (VERY LARGE - most potent component)
    • Delivery: Moderate - requires monitoring and adjustment
  4. Stimulus Control Instructions
    • Effect size: d = 0.6-0.8
    • Delivery: Good - simple rules to follow
  5. Relaxation for Sleep
    • Components: PMR, autogenic training, or guided imagery before bed
    • Effect size: d = 0.5-0.6 for sleep latency
    • Delivery: Excellent - audio-guided

2.1.5 Delivery Feasibility & Comparative Testing

Delivery: Excellent - Digital CBT-I apps well-established
Comparative Potential: HIGH - Could compare components or full protocol vs. components

2.1.6 Key Papers

  • Babson, K. A., et al. (2017). Cannabis, cannabinoids, and sleep: A review of the literature. Current Psychiatry Reports, 19(4), 23.
  • Germain, A., et al. (2006). Brief behavioral sleep intervention for PTSD. Behavior Therapy, 37(1), 45-53.
  • Espie, C. A., et al. (2012). A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of online CBT for chronic insomnia. Sleep, 35(6), 769-781.
  • Ritterband, L. M., et al. (2017). Effect of web-based CBT for insomnia with 1-year follow-up. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(1), 68-75.
  • Gates, P. J., et al. (2014). Cannabis withdrawal and sleep: A systematic review. Substance Abuse, 35(3), 255-269.

2.1.7 Intervention Implications Based on Direction

If wanting to sleep→MORE use: - Provide effective non-cannabis sleep interventions - Start with Brief-BTI or digital CBT-I (strongest evidence) - Expect temporary worsening during withdrawal (prepare patients) - Support through first 1-2 weeks when withdrawal insomnia worst

If wanting to sleep→LESS use: - Understand protective pattern (performance concern, quality awareness, autonomy) - May still be experiencing insomnia - consider offering interventions anyway - Frame as improving sleep health, not cannabis treatment

2.1.8 Bottom Line

TOP RECOMMENDATION. Addresses withdrawal barrier, gold-standard interventions, clear functional replacement. Less likely bidirectional makes it good first-study choice.

Suggested Design: 2-arm RCT (Brief-BTI vs. waitlist). Primary outcome: Sleep-motivated cannabis use (EMA). Secondary: Sleep quality (PSQI, actigraphy), ISI, overall use. Test mediation: Does sleep improvement → reduced use?


2.2 #29 Overall Positive Emotions - INNOVATIVE

Overall Rating: VERY HIGH - INNOVATIVE
Bidirectionality Likelihood: HIGHLY LIKELY
Type: Bidirectional - Protective OR Enhancement depending on individual

2.2.1 Evidence Base

Broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001): Positive emotions broaden coping repertoire and build resources. Addresses hedonic dysregulation (inability to experience pleasure without substances). Trait positive affect predicts less substance use. Creates upward spirals of well-being. Positive emotions buffer against stress and negative affect.

2.2.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

This mechanism is HIGHLY LIKELY bidirectional - strong theoretical and empirical basis:

  • Enhancement motives: Some use substances to amplify/prolong pleasant states including positive emotions (Cooper, 1994)
  • Baseline affect: Higher baseline positive affect generally protective; BUT those high on enhancement motives more likely to use during positive states (Simons et al., 2005)
  • Hedonic dysregulation: Those who can generate positive affect naturally → less use; those with anhedonia → use to experience positive emotions
  • Context: Positive emotions in celebratory contexts → use; positive emotions during valued activities → less use (don’t want to disrupt)

2.2.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use (enhancement/amplification):

  • “I’m feeling good - cannabis will make me feel even better”
  • “Positive emotions are nice, but being high is amazing - why settle?”
  • “I’m happy, so it’s the perfect time to celebrate with cannabis”
  • “Positive emotions mean I’ve earned the right to get high and have more fun”
  • “I can finally enjoy getting high since I’m not using desperately to cope”

Path to LESS use (protective satisfaction):

  • “I’m feeling good naturally - I don’t need cannabis, this feeling is enough”
  • “Positive emotions remind me of my goals and why I’m trying to quit”
  • “When I’m happy, I have perspective and don’t need artificial enhancement”
  • “Natural positive emotions feel pure - cannabis would make them artificial”
  • “I’m feeling good, which means I’m doing well in my quit attempt - using would ruin that”

2.2.4 Best Brief Interventions (For Positive Emotions→Less Use)

  1. Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE)
    • Components: Mindfulness + reappraisal + savoring
    • Effect size: d = 0.8-1.0 for positive affect; d = 0.6-0.8 for SUD
    • Delivery: Moderate (8-week protocol, but daily practices brief)
    • Specifically designed for SUD; repairs hedonic dysregulation
  2. Loving-Kindness Meditation
    • Effect size: d = 0.5-0.6 for positive affect
    • Delivery: Excellent - audio-guided
  3. Positive Activity Interventions
    • Components: Gratitude, acts of kindness, savoring
    • Effect size: d = 0.5 for well-being
    • Delivery: Excellent - app-based
  4. Behavioral Activation
    • Effect size: d = 0.7-0.9 for depression
    • Delivery: Moderate

2.2.5 Key Papers

  • Garland, E. L., et al. (2014). Mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement for chronic pain. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(3), 448-459.
  • Garland, E. L., et al. (2019). Mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement reduces opioid misuse. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 201, 61-69.
  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
  • Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being with positive psychology interventions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 467-487.
  • Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 117-128.
  • Simons, J. S., et al. (2005). Event-level associations between affect and alcohol intoxication. Addictive Behaviors, 30(5), 965-979.

2.2.6 Intervention Implications

If positive emotions→LESS use (Protective): - BUILD more positive emotion capacity (MORE, LKM, gratitude, BA) - Goal: Increase time in protective zone

If positive emotions→MORE use (Enhancement): - Help SAVOR positive emotions without amplifying with cannabis - DON’T build more positive emotions (could increase enhancement opportunities) - Mindful presence, values exploration

Requires: 1-2 week EMA screening to determine direction

2.2.7 Bottom Line

INNOVATIVE positive psychology approach. MORE specifically designed for SUD. Best as SECOND study testing directional tailoring after proof-of-concept.


2.3 #9 Feeling Anxious

Overall Rating: VERY HIGH
Bidirectionality Likelihood: HIGHLY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but with Important Exceptions

2.3.1 Evidence Base

Anxiety #1 self-reported reason for cannabis use. Chronic use may worsen anxiety (Kedzior & Laeber, 2014). EMA shows anxiety predicts use within-person. Anxiety is withdrawal symptom (vicious cycle).

2.3.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Highly likely bidirectional:

  • Anxiety type: Social anxiety → use; performance anxiety → less use (fear of impairment)
  • Expectancies: Expect anxiety relief → use; expect paranoia → avoid (Schafer & Brown, 1991)
  • Anxiety sensitivity: High AS predicts BOTH more use (desperate for relief) AND less use (fear of panic) (Zvolensky et al., 2009)
  • Context/stakes: High-stakes (important event) → less use; low-stakes → more use
  • Experience: Cannabis-induced panic → avoidance when anxious

2.3.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “I’m so anxious, I need something to calm me down” - “Cannabis is the only thing that helps my anxiety” - “I can’t handle this anxiety - I need relief now” - Medical justification: “I use cannabis for my anxiety disorder”

Path to LESS use: - “I’m anxious about this presentation - cannabis would make me more paranoid” - “When I use cannabis while anxious, I get way MORE anxious, not less” - “I need to stay sharp - can’t risk being impaired” - “Last time I used when anxious, I had a panic attack” - “Cannabis makes my anxiety worse long-term - breaking the cycle”

2.3.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Grounding 5-4-3-2-1 (5-10 min) - Excellent delivery
  2. Box Breathing (d=0.3-0.4) - Excellent delivery
  3. Cognitive Restructuring (d=0.5-0.7) - Good delivery
  4. Worry Surfing - Good delivery
  5. PMR (d=0.5-0.6) - Good delivery
  6. AWARE Strategy - Good delivery

2.3.5 Key Papers

  • Buckner, J. D., & Schmidt, N. B. (2008). Marijuana effect expectancies and social anxiety. Addictive Behaviors, 33(11), 1477-1483.
  • Kedzior, K. K., & Laeber, L. T. (2014). Anxiety disorders and cannabis use meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 166, 206-213.
  • Zvolensky, M. J., et al. (2009). Anxiety sensitivity and marijuana use. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(3), 234-245.
  • Schafer, J., & Brown, S. A. (1991). Marijuana and cocaine effect expectancies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(4), 558-565.

2.3.6 Intervention Implications

If anxiety→MORE use: - Provide anxiety management alternatives - First line: Grounding or box breathing (fastest relief) - Psychoeducation: Cannabis worsens anxiety long-term

If anxiety→LESS use: - Understand: Fear of paranoia? Performance need? Implementation intentions working? - DON’T assume managing anxiety well - may be white-knuckling - Consider offering anxiety treatment anyway (frame as wellness)

2.3.7 Bottom Line

Multiple interventions, excellent comparative effectiveness potential. CRITICAL: Anxiety HIGHLY LIKELY bidirectional - anxiety type, expectancies, anxiety sensitivity, context all influence direction. MUST assess individual pattern.


2.4 #13 Feeling Calm - INNOVATIVE

Overall Rating: VERY HIGH - INNOVATIVE
Bidirectionality Likelihood: HIGHLY LIKELY
Type: Bidirectional - Protective OR Enhancement

2.4.1 Evidence Base

Calm represents successful emotion regulation. Baseline calm protects against stress-induced use. Trait mindfulness (increases calm) predicts less substance use (Bowen et al., 2014). Positive affect broadening: Calm is low-arousal positive state that broadens coping repertoire (Fredrickson, 2001).

Intervention Logic: INCREASE frequency/duration of calm states so people spend more time in protective zones - BUT ONLY for those where calm→less use.

2.4.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Highly likely bidirectional - strong evidence:

  • Enhancement motives: Some use to amplify/prolong pleasant states including calm (Cooper, 1994)
  • Baseline affect: Higher baseline positive affect protective; BUT enhancement motives → use during positive states (Simons et al., 2005)
  • Context: Calm weekend evenings → use (ritual); calm before important task → less use
  • Temperament: Sensation-seekers find calm boring, use to enhance; low sensation-seekers find calm satisfying
  • Boredom proneness: High boredom-prone use during calm to create stimulation; low boredom-prone don’t (Weybright et al., 2015)

2.4.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use (enhancement): - “I’m feeling good and relaxed - cannabis will make this even better” - “This calm is nice, but being high would be amazing” - “Finally relaxed - time to celebrate with cannabis” - “Calm is boring - I want euphoric, not just calm” - Habitual: Weekend evening calm = recreational use cue

Path to LESS use (protective satisfaction): - “I’m already calm and content - I don’t need cannabis” - “This natural calm feels good and pure - don’t want to make it artificial” - “When calm, I have mental space to remember why I’m quitting” - “Being calm without cannabis proves I can regulate emotions on my own” - “Calm means I’m not stressed/anxious - THOSE are my triggers” - Incompatible: “I’m calm before [important task] - using would ruin that”

2.4.4 Best Brief Interventions (For Calm→Less Use)

  1. Loving-Kindness Meditation (d=0.5-0.6) - Excellent delivery
  2. Coherent Breathing/HRV (d=0.8-1.0 for HRV) - Excellent delivery
  3. Autogenic Training (d=0.7-0.9) - Excellent delivery
  4. Brief MBSR (d=0.7-0.8) - Good delivery
  5. Yoga Nidra (d=0.6-0.8) - Excellent delivery

2.4.5 Key Papers

  • Garland, E. L., et al. (2010). Mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement. Substance Abuse, 31(2), 107-120.
  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). Broaden-and-build theory. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
  • Lehrer, P. M., et al. (2000). Heart rate variability biofeedback. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62(6), 796-803.
  • Stetter, F., & Kupper, S. (2002). Autogenic training meta-analysis. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 27(1), 45-98.
  • Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 117-128.
  • Simons, J. S., et al. (2005). Event-level affect and alcohol intoxication. Addictive Behaviors, 30(5), 965-979.
  • Weybright, E. H., et al. (2015). Boredom proneness and substance use. Substance Use & Misuse, 50(3), 341-347.

2.4.6 Intervention Implications

If calm→LESS use (Protective): - BUILD calm capacity (LKM, coherent breathing, autogenic, mindfulness) - Increase time in protective zone - Frame as building resource, not treating problem

If calm→MORE use (Enhancement): - Help SAVOR calm without amplifying - DON’T build more calm (could increase enhancement opportunities) - Mindful presence, alternative enhancement

Requires: EMA screening to determine direction

2.4.7 Bottom Line

INNOVATIVE protective factor enhancement. Proactively build calm rather than react to stress. HIGHLY LIKELY bidirectional - REQUIRES screening. Best as SECOND study demonstrating directional tailoring.


2.5 #8 Feeling Stressed

Overall Rating: VERY HIGH
Bidirectionality Likelihood: HIGHLY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but Context-Dependent

2.5.1 Evidence Base

Stress is TOP predictor in EMA studies (Buckner et al., 2015). Daily stress predicts same-day/next-day use. Temporal dynamics: Effects within 2-4 hours (ideal for JITAI). Coping motives mediate stress-cannabis relationship.

2.5.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Highly likely bidirectional - multiple moderators:

  • Stress type: Controllable/performance stress → less use (need clarity); uncontrollable/emotional stress → more use (Sinha & Li, 2007)
  • Coping style: Problem-focused → less use; emotion-focused/avoidant → more use (Wills & Hirky, 1996)
  • Context: Work/performance stress → less use; interpersonal stress → more use (Armeli et al., 2007)
  • Self-efficacy: High cannabis refusal SE → resist stress-triggered use (Kadden & Litt, 2011)
  • Perceived consequences: Stress about things cannabis worsens → less use

2.5.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “I’m so stressed, I need something to help me relax and escape” - “Cannabis is my stress management tool” - “I’m overwhelmed - I need to check out” - “I deserve to relax after such a stressful day” - Automatic: Stress = use cue

Path to LESS use: - “I’m stressed about this deadline - need to stay sharp to fix it” - “Cannabis would make my stress worse by reducing my ability to cope” - “I’m stressed BECAUSE of cannabis (money, relationships) - using would compound it” - “When stressed and use, I just get paranoid, not better” - “This stress is information - telling me to act, not avoid” - Implementation intention: “When stressed, I will use breathing, not cannabis”

2.5.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Brief Mindful Breathing (d=0.3-0.5) - Excellent delivery
  2. PMR (d=0.5-0.6) - Good delivery
  3. Stress Inoculation (d=0.6-0.8) - Moderate delivery
  4. Cognitive Reappraisal (d=0.3-0.5) - Good delivery
  5. TIPP Skills - Moderate delivery

2.5.5 Key Papers

  • Sinha, R. (2008). Chronic stress, drug use, and vulnerability to addiction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1141, 105-130.
  • Wills, T. A., & Hirky, A. E. (1996). Coping and substance abuse: A theoretical model. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57(6), 613-620.
  • Armeli, S., et al. (2007). Daily associations between avoidance coping and alcohol use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 325-333.
  • Kadden, R. M., & Litt, M. D. (2011). Self-efficacy in substance use treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 36(12), 1120-1126.
  • Sinha, R., & Li, C. S. (2007). Imaging stress- and cue-induced drug craving. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26(1), 25-31.

2.5.6 Intervention Implications

If stress→MORE use: - Provide stress management alternatives - First line: Mindful breathing (quickest, easiest) - JITAI ideal (2-4 hour window)

If stress→LESS use: - Understand: Performance stress? Awareness cannabis worsens? Problem-focused coping? - DON’T intervene on stress - already adaptive - Explore: Are there stress types where pattern flips?

2.5.7 Bottom Line

Gold standard interventions, ideal for JITAI. CRITICAL: Stress HIGHLY LIKELY bidirectional. Stress type, controllability, coping style, context all influence direction. MUST assess individual pattern.


2.6 #5 Wanting to Relax

Overall Rating: VERY HIGH
Bidirectionality Likelihood: LESS LIKELY BUT POSSIBLE
Type: Generally Unidirectional Risk

2.6.1 Evidence Base

“Relaxation” is top self-reported reason for cannabis use (Cooper & Haney, 2009). Cannabis highly effective for inducing relaxation. Immediate relaxation effect strongly reinforces use.

2.6.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Less likely bidirectional, but possible:

  • Context: Want to relax before bed → use; want to relax before important task → less use (can’t afford impairment)
  • Alternatives: Those with effective non-cannabis relaxation → less use; without alternatives → use
  • Goal clarity: Relax from stress vs. relax into sleep vs. relax for pleasure (different pathways)
  • Self-efficacy: High relaxation SE (without substances) → less use

2.6.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “I need to relax and cannabis is the fastest, most effective way” - “I deserve to relax with cannabis after stressful day” - “I can’t relax without cannabis anymore” - “Wanting to relax = time to smoke - automatic” - “Natural relaxation takes too long/doesn’t work as well”

Path to LESS use: - “I want to relax but need to stay alert for [task] - I’ll use breathing instead” - “I want natural relaxation, not artificial - cannabis doesn’t count as real relaxation” - “When I relax with cannabis, I just get sleepy/foggy” - “I can relax without cannabis - I’ll try PMR/breathing first” - “I want to relax AND stay productive - cannabis would make me too relaxed”

2.6.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. PMR (d=0.8-1.0 LARGE) - Excellent delivery
  2. Autogenic Training (d=0.7-0.9 LARGE) - Excellent delivery
  3. Guided Imagery (d=0.6-0.8) - Excellent delivery
  4. Diaphragmatic Breathing (d=0.5-0.6) - Excellent delivery
  5. Mindfulness (d=0.5-0.6) - Excellent delivery
  6. Body Scan (d=0.5-0.6) - Excellent delivery

2.6.5 Key Papers

  • Cooper, Z. D., & Haney, M. (2009). Actions of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in cannabis. International Review of Psychiatry, 21(2), 104-112.
  • Bernstein, D. A., & Borkovec, T. D. (1973). Progressive relaxation training. Research Press.
  • Stetter, F., & Kupper, S. (2002). Autogenic training meta-analysis. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 27(1), 45-98.

2.6.6 Intervention Implications

If wanting to relax→MORE use: - Provide equally effective alternatives (PMR, autogenic show LARGE effects) - “Horse race” - try multiple techniques, choose what works - Must produce comparable relaxation or won’t replace cannabis

If wanting to relax→LESS use: - Understand: Have effective alternatives? Context prevents? Values-based? - If no alternatives but white-knuckling, still offer relaxation training

2.6.7 Bottom Line

Multiple gold-standard interventions with LARGE effect sizes. “Horse race” of relaxation techniques possible. Less likely bidirectional - good for simpler study design.


2.7 #10 Craving

Overall Rating: VERY HIGH (but “obvious”)
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but Self-Efficacy Moderates

2.7.1 Evidence Base

Most established addiction mechanism. Craving predicts lapse/relapse (Haughey et al., 2008). Cravings peak and subside within 20-30 min (urge surfing rationale). Well-understood neural correlates.

2.7.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Moderately likely bidirectional:

  • Craving management SE: High SE → craving as challenge/skill practice; low SE → surrender (Kadden & Litt, 2011)
  • Stage of change: Action stage → craving triggers counter-regulation; precontemplation → automatic use (Tiffany & Conklin, 2000)
  • Implementation intentions: Strong if-then plans disrupt craving→use (Armitage, 2008)
  • Mindfulness: Trait mindfulness weakens craving→use (observe without acting) (Bowen et al., 2009)
  • Interpretation: Craving as healing sign vs. inevitable use signal

2.7.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “The craving is too strong, I can’t resist” - “Only way to make craving stop is to use” - “I’ve been craving all day, I deserve to use” - Automatic: Craving triggers habitual use without conscious decision

Path to LESS use: - “Craving means quit attempt is working - sign of progress” - “This will pass in 20 minutes if I ride it out” - “Craving is opportunity to practice urge surfing skills” - “Every time I resist, I get stronger” - “Craving means I’m in withdrawal - body is healing, won’t undo it” - Implementation intention: “When I crave, I will [alternative]” - “Craving is trying to control me - I won’t let it”

2.7.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Urge Surfing (d=0.3-0.5) - Good delivery
  2. Cognitive Defusion - Good delivery
  3. Playing Tape Forward - Good delivery
  4. Competing Response (d=0.5-0.6) - Moderate delivery
  5. SOBER Breathing Space - Excellent delivery

2.7.5 Key Papers

  • Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1985). Relapse prevention. Guilford Press.
  • Bowen, S., et al. (2014). MBRP randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(5), 547-556.
  • Kadden, R. M., & Litt, M. D. (2011). Self-efficacy in SUD treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 36(12), 1120-1126.
  • Tiffany, S. T., & Conklin, C. A. (2000). Cognitive processing model of craving. Addiction, 95(Suppl 2), S145-S153.
  • Armitage, C. J. (2008). Implementation intentions for smoking cessation RCT. Health Psychology, 27(5), 557-566.

2.7.6 Intervention Implications

If craving→MORE use: - Urge surfing, defusion, competing responses - Psychoeducation: Cravings are temporary (20-30 min) - JITAI potential excellent

If craving→LESS use: - DON’T intervene - already adaptive! - Understand: High SE? Implementation intentions working? Views craving as progress? - Reinforce existing coping - Make protective process explicit and reliable

2.7.7 Bottom Line

Strongest evidence base but most “obvious.” Better as SECOND study. MODERATELY LIKELY bidirectional - SE, stage of change, implementation intentions, mindfulness all moderate.


3 HIGH Promise Mechanisms

3.1 #20 Feeling Bored - UNDERSTUDIED

Overall Rating: HIGH - UNDERSTUDIED
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but Alternatives Matter

3.1.1 Evidence Base

Boredom increasingly recognized for cannabis, especially frequent users. Low arousal/understimulation. Boredom proneness trait predicts use (Lee et al., 2013; Weybright et al., 2015).

3.1.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Moderately likely bidirectional:

  • Boredom type: Understimulation → use; overstimulation boredom → may not use
  • Alternatives availability: With engaging alternatives → less use; without → use
  • Trait boredom proneness: High trait → use; low trait → tolerate situational boredom
  • Sensation-seeking: High SS use when bored; low SS tolerate boredom
  • Mindfulness: High mindfulness → tolerate boredom; low → use (Eastwood et al., 2012)

3.1.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “I’m so bored, I need something to do/feel” - “Can’t stand this boredom - getting high is at least SOMETHING” - “When bored, cannabis makes everything more interesting” - “I have nothing better to do, might as well get high”

Path to LESS use: - “I’m bored, so I should find something actually engaging, not just get high” - “I’m bored WITH cannabis - it’s become boring itself” - “When I use because I’m bored, I just end up more bored and foggy” - “Boredom means I need meaningful activity, not altered consciousness” - Mindfulness: “I’m bored, and that’s okay - I can sit with this”

3.1.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Behavioral Activation (d=0.5) - Moderate delivery
  2. Mindfulness for Boredom - Good delivery
  3. Sensation-Seeking Alternatives - Moderate delivery
  4. Values-Based Activities - Moderate delivery

3.1.5 Key Papers

  • Lee, C. M., et al. (2013). Marijuana motives and substance use. Addictive Behaviors, 38(9), 2410-2414.
  • Weybright, E. H., et al. (2015). Boredom proneness and substance use. Substance Use & Misuse, 50(3), 341-347.
  • Eastwood, J. D., et al. (2012). The unengaged mind: Defining boredom. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 482-495.

3.1.6 Intervention Implications

If boredom→MORE use: - Assess boredom type (understimulation vs. lack of meaning) - BA or sensation-seeking alternatives (provide stimulation) - Values-based planning (provide meaning) - Challenge: Activities must genuinely engage

If boredom→LESS use: - Understand: Bored WITH cannabis? Awareness cannabis doesn’t solve? Mindful tolerance? - May still benefit from life enrichment (frame as wellness)

3.1.7 Bottom Line

UNDERSTUDIED = innovation opportunity. MODERATELY LIKELY bidirectional - boredom proneness, sensation-seeking, alternatives availability moderate.


3.2 #28 Habit/Automaticity

Overall Rating: HIGH
Bidirectionality Likelihood: LESS LIKELY BUT POSSIBLE
Type: Generally Risk but Awareness Disrupts

3.2.1 Evidence Base

Cannabis becomes habitual with repetition. Habit strength increases with frequency. Dual-process: Bypasses conscious decision. Cue-triggered automatic responses (de Wit & Richards, 2004).

3.2.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Less likely bidirectional, but possible:

  • Habit awareness: Recognition of automaticity can disrupt habit (Teper & Inzlicht, 2013)
  • Implementation intentions: Override habitual responses (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006)
  • Mindfulness: Introduces awareness/choice, disrupts automaticity (Bowen et al., 2009)
  • Reactance: Some respond to recognizing habit with oppositional motivation

3.2.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - Automatic: Cue triggers use without conscious decision - “I used before I realized what I was doing” - “It’s just what I do - I don’t even think about it” - “Habit is so strong, resisting feels impossible” - Mindless: Using while doing other things

Path to LESS use: - Meta-awareness: “I just reached for cannabis automatically - wait, do I actually want this?” - “Noticing automatic urge made me pause and choose differently” - Implementation intention working: Cue triggers alternative response - “Becoming aware of my habits helped me break them” - Reactance: “I don’t like being controlled by automatic patterns”

3.2.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Implementation Intentions (d=0.5-0.6) - Good delivery
  2. Habit Reversal Training (d=0.8-1.0) - Moderate delivery
  3. Cue Disruption (d=0.5) - Good delivery
  4. Mindful Awareness - Good delivery
  5. Stimulus Control (d=0.4-0.6) - Moderate delivery

3.2.5 Key Papers

  • Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions meta-analysis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119.
  • Armitage, C. J. (2008). Implementation intentions for smoking cessation RCT. Health Psychology, 27(5), 557-566.
  • de Wit, H., & Richards, J. B. (2004). Dual determinants of drug use. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 50, 19-55.
  • Teper, R., & Inzlicht, M. (2013). Mindfulness disrupts automatic responses. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(1), 85-92.

3.2.6 Intervention Implications

If habit/cues→MORE use: - Implementation intentions (if-then plans for cues) - Mindful awareness (catch automaticity, introduce choice) - If very strong: HRT

If habit/cues→LESS use: - Understand: Meta-awareness working? Implementation intentions in place? Reactance? - Reinforce existing disruption skills - Don’t assume permanent - habits can re-emerge

3.2.7 Bottom Line

Relevant for frequent users. Implementation intentions smartphone-friendly. LESS LIKELY bidirectional but awareness can disrupt.


3.3 #19 Feeling Down/Depressed

Overall Rating: HIGH
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but Severity/Awareness Matter

3.3.1 Evidence Base

Depression predicts cannabis use (bidirectional relationship). Depressed mood predicts same-day use. Self-medication common though worsens over time. Dysphoria common in withdrawal (Degenhardt et al., 2003).

3.3.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Moderately likely bidirectional:

  • Severity: Mild-moderate → use (self-medication); severe with anhedonia → less use (too depressed to initiate)
  • Cognitive patterns: Hopelessness → more use (giving up) OR less use (nothing helps)
  • Awareness: Cannabis worsens depression long-term → less use when depressed; short-term focus → use

3.3.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “I feel so depressed - cannabis is only thing that helps” - “Too depressed to care about quit goals” - “Cannabis helps me escape this horrible feeling” - “When depressed, nothing matters including commitment not to use” - “Feel numb - cannabis makes me feel SOMETHING”

Path to LESS use: - “Depressed and cannabis would just make me more depressed” - “Too depressed to even bother using - takes too much energy” - “When depressed, I don’t enjoy cannabis anyway - doesn’t help” - “Depressed BECAUSE of cannabis - using would be self-sabotage” - “Depression makes me realize what’s important - health, not getting high” - Anhedonia: “Too depressed to enjoy anything including cannabis”

3.3.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Behavioral Activation (d=0.7-0.9) - Moderate delivery
  2. Cognitive Restructuring (d=0.6-0.8) - Good delivery
  3. Self-Compassion (d=0.4-0.6) - Good delivery
  4. Gratitude (d=0.3-0.5) - Excellent delivery

3.3.5 Key Papers

  • Degenhardt, L., et al. (2003). Cannabis use in adolescence: 10-year follow-up. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183(4), 318-324.
  • Daughters, S. B., et al. (2008). BA for substance users with depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69(1), 122-129.
  • Lejuez, C. W., et al. (2011). Brief BA treatment. Behavior Modification, 35(2), 111-161.

3.3.6 Intervention Implications

If depression→MORE use: - Treat depression (BA first line for SUD+depression comorbidity) - May need more than single session

If depression→LESS use: - CRITICAL: Even if protective for cannabis, depression needs treatment - Still offer BA/treatment (frame as wellness) - Monitor: If depression improves, does cannabis use pattern change?

3.3.7 Bottom Line

Strong evidence. BA most promising. MODERATELY LIKELY bidirectional - severity, awareness, anhedonia matter. IMPORTANT: Depression needs treatment regardless of cannabis use pattern.


3.4 #30 Overall Negative Emotions

Overall Rating: HIGH
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but ER Capacity Moderates

3.4.1 Evidence Base

Transdiagnostic predictor across substances. Emotion dysregulation moderates affect→use relationship (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Negative affect increases in withdrawal.

3.4.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Moderately likely bidirectional:

  • ER capacity: Good ER skills → less use despite negative emotions; poor ER → use (Gratz & Roemer, 2004)
  • Intensity: Moderate negative emotions → use; extreme → less use (too overwhelmed; need real help)
  • ER beliefs: Believe can manage without substances → less use; believe only substances help → use
  • Context: Performance context → less use; leisure → more use

3.4.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “I feel terrible - need to escape this feeling” - “Can’t handle negative emotions without cannabis” - “Cannabis is my emotion regulation tool” - “These feelings are unbearable - need relief now” - Automatic: Negative feelings trigger use

Path to LESS use: - “Feel bad, but using would just make me avoid dealing with what’s wrong” - “Feel terrible, which means I need real help, not temporary escape” - “Cannabis might numb pain temporarily but doesn’t solve anything” - “I’m trying to learn to manage emotions without substances” - “These feelings are information - telling me something important” - Implementation intention: “When I feel bad, I will use coping skills”

3.4.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. PLEASE Skills (DBT) - Moderate delivery
  2. Opposite Action - Moderate delivery
  3. Affect Labeling (d=0.3-0.5) - Excellent delivery
  4. ER Training (d=0.4-0.6) - Moderate delivery
  5. Acceptance - Good delivery

3.4.5 Key Papers

  • Linehan, M. M. (2015). DBT skills training manual (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  • Lieberman, M. D., et al. (2007). Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421-428.
  • Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Emotion regulation and dysregulation. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41-54.
  • Berking, M., et al. (2008). Emotion-regulation skills as treatment target. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(11), 1230-1237.

3.4.6 Intervention Implications

If negative emotions→MORE use: - Build ER capacity - Affect labeling (simple, immediate) - ER training (toolkit of strategies) - Consider targeting specific emotions instead

If negative emotions→LESS use: - Understand: Good ER skills? Awareness cannabis doesn’t help? Problem-solving orientation? - Even if protective, assess if managing well or white-knuckling - May still benefit from ER training (frame as wellness)

3.4.7 Bottom Line

Very relevant but TOO BROAD. Specific emotions (anxiety, stress, depression) better targets. MODERATELY LIKELY bidirectional - ER capacity key moderator.


3.5 #1 Interpersonal Situation/Conflict

Overall Rating: HIGH
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but Conflict Type/Context Matter

3.5.1 Evidence Base

Interpersonal stress/conflict predicts use. Multiple pathways: conflict→affect→use; social pressure; contextual cues (Longabaugh et al., 2005).

3.5.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Moderately likely bidirectional:

  • Conflict type: Performance conflict (with boss) → less use (need clarity); emotional conflict (with partner) → more use (Hussong et al., 2001)
  • Attachment style: Secure → reduce use during conflict (facilitate resolution); avoidant → increase use (escape) (Fairbairn et al., 2018)
  • Relationship quality: Valued relationships → less use (want to be present); troubled relationships → more use (escape)

3.5.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “Can’t deal with this fight - need to escape” - “They’re making me so angry/hurt - need to numb this” - “Conflict is overwhelming - cannabis will help me not care” - “After fighting, I deserve to relax” - “Conflict makes me want to be alone and high”

Path to LESS use: - “We’re in a fight and I need to be clear-headed to work this out” - “They’re already mad about my cannabis use - using would make it worse” - “This conflict is important - can’t check out” - “When high during conflicts, I say things I regret” - “The fight is ABOUT my cannabis - using would prove their point” - “This relationship is in trouble because of cannabis - using won’t help”

3.5.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Assertiveness Training (d=0.5) - Difficult delivery
  2. Communication Skills (d=0.5-0.6) - Moderate-Difficult delivery
  3. Mindful Communication - Moderate delivery
  4. ER in Relationships - Moderate delivery

3.5.5 Key Papers

  • Longabaugh, R., et al. (2005). Network support for drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66(5), 666-675.
  • O’Farrell, T. J., & Fals-Stewart, W. (2006). Behavioral couples therapy. Guilford Press.
  • Hussong, A. M., et al. (2001). Perceived peer context and adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(4), 391-420.
  • Fairbairn, C. E., et al. (2018). A social-attributional analysis of alcohol response. Psychological Bulletin, 144(5), 493-523.

3.5.6 Intervention Implications

If interpersonal conflict→MORE use: - Teach conflict resolution, communication, ER during conflict - Best as in-person initial + real-world practice

If interpersonal conflict→LESS use: - Understand: Fear of consequences? Values-based? Good skills already? - Don’t intervene on conflict - adaptive - Assess: Are there OTHER interpersonal situations that DO trigger use?

3.5.7 Bottom Line

Very relevant but challenging for brief/remote delivery. MODERATELY LIKELY bidirectional - conflict type, relationship quality, coping style matter.


3.6 #18 Feeling Irritable

Overall Rating: HIGH
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but Withdrawal vs. Situational Matters

3.6.1 Evidence Base

Withdrawal symptom and relapse trigger. Increases with heavy use. Predicts use especially among dependent users (Allsop et al., 2011; Budney et al., 2004).

3.6.2 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Moderately likely bidirectional:

  • Source: Withdrawal irritability → use (relief); situational irritability → less use if aware cannabis won’t solve
  • Anger control: Poor control → use; good control → less use
  • Context: Irritable at work → less use (can’t afford impairment); at home → more use
  • Insight: Aware cannabis CAUSES irritability (withdrawal) → resist using when irritable

3.6.3 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “I’m so irritable - need cannabis to calm down” - “I’m irritable because I haven’t used yet - need to use to feel normal” - “Everyone’s annoying me - need to get high so I don’t snap” - “Can’t control my irritability without cannabis” - Withdrawal: “Irritable from withdrawal - using will make it go away”

Path to LESS use: - “I’m irritable BECAUSE of withdrawal - using would perpetuate cycle” - “Irritable, but cannabis won’t solve actual problem” - “Need to address what’s frustrating me, not numb it” - “When use while irritable, don’t deal with problems and they get worse” - “I’m irritable but have important [task] - can’t be impaired” - Implementation intention: “When irritable, I will use relaxation, not cannabis”

3.6.4 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Brief Anger Management (d=0.5-0.6) - Moderate delivery
  2. Relaxation Training (d=0.5) - Good delivery
  3. Emotion Regulation - Moderate delivery
  4. Distress Tolerance - Moderate-Good delivery

3.6.5 Key Papers

  • Allsop, D. J., et al. (2011). Quantifying cannabis withdrawal. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e44864.
  • Deffenbacher, J. L. (2011). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of anger. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 18(2), 212-221.
  • Budney, A. J., et al. (2004). Cannabis withdrawal syndrome review. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(11), 1967-1977.

3.6.6 Intervention Implications

If irritability→MORE use: - Assess: Withdrawal vs. situational? - If withdrawal: Expect temporary worsening; provide coping; normalize - Relaxation training, TIPP skills (rapid de-escalation)

If irritability→LESS use: - Understand: Insight about withdrawal cycle? Problem-solving orientation? - Even if protective, irritability still problematic (relationships, QOL) - Offer interventions anyway (frame as QOL improvement)

3.6.7 Bottom Line

Relevant but overlaps with negative affect. Relaxation most smartphone-friendly. MODERATELY LIKELY bidirectional - withdrawal vs. situational, insight, context matter.


4 MODERATE Promise Mechanisms

4.1 #4 Having a Headache

Overall Rating: MODERATE
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but Context Matters

4.1.1 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

  • Pain type: Chronic predictable → less use (scheduled management); acute unpredictable → more use
  • Medication overuse: Cannabis CAN cause rebound headaches; recognition → less use (Fiani et al., 2020)
  • Functional context: Headache during work → less use; during leisure → more use
  • Alternative efficacy: Believe non-cannabis relief works → less use

4.1.2 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “This headache is killing me - cannabis is only thing that helps” - “Can’t function with headache - need relief now” - “Cannabis works better than ibuprofen” - Medical justification: “This is medical use”

Path to LESS use: - “Have a headache but need to stay sharp for work/driving” - “My headaches are FROM cannabis (rebound) - using would make worse” - “Cannabis helps temporarily but then they come back worse” - “Headache because I’m dehydrated/stressed - cannabis won’t fix root cause” - “I’ll take ibuprofen - it works and doesn’t impair me”

4.1.3 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Relaxation for Headache (d=0.5-0.6) - Excellent delivery
  2. Biofeedback (d=0.7-0.8) - Moderate delivery
  3. Brief CBT for Pain (d=0.5) - Moderate delivery

4.1.4 Key Papers

  • Rhyne, D. N., et al. (2016). Medical marijuana for migraine. Pharmacotherapy, 36(5), 505-510.
  • Penzien, D. B., et al. (2015). Behavioral treatments for headache. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 19(9), 41.
  • Nestoriuc, Y., et al. (2008). Biofeedback meta-analysis. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 33(3), 125-140.
  • Fiani, B., et al. (2020). Medical marijuana and headache frequency. Surgical Neurology International, 11, 386.

4.1.5 Bottom Line

Good evidence but may be too intermittent unless chronic. Biofeedback shows largest effects. MODERATELY LIKELY bidirectional - context, rebound awareness matter.


4.2 #15 Feeling Comfortable

Overall Rating: MODERATE-HIGH
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Bidirectional - Protective OR Enhancement

4.2.1 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

Self-compassion buffers stress. Physical comfort reduces pain-motivated use. Social comfort reduces socially-motivated use. BUT can also be enhanced with cannabis.

4.2.2 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “I’m comfortable and relaxed - cannabis will enhance this” - “Finally comfortable - time to celebrate with cannabis” - “Comfort is nice but being high is better”

Path to LESS use: - “I’m already comfortable - don’t need cannabis” - “This natural comfort feels authentic - don’t want to alter it” - “Being comfortable without cannabis proves my self-regulation”

4.2.3 Best Brief Interventions (For Comfortable→Less Use)

  1. Self-Compassion Training (d=0.5-0.6) - Excellent delivery
  2. PMR - Good delivery
  3. Body Scan - Excellent delivery
  4. ACT (d=0.6-0.8) - Moderate delivery

4.2.4 Key Papers

  • Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2013). Self-compassion program RCT. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 28-44.
  • Phelps, C. L., et al. (2018). Self-compassion and SUD risk. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 183, 78-81.
  • Brooks, M., et al. (2012). Self-compassion and problematic alcohol use. Mindfulness, 3(4), 308-317.

4.2.5 Bottom Line

Self-compassion angle innovative. MODERATELY LIKELY bidirectional - requires screening. Consider if less operationalized than “calm.”


4.3 #6 Wanting to Be High

Overall Rating: MODERATE
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but Awareness Can Trigger Self-Regulation

4.3.1 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

  • Motivation awareness: Recognition of enhancement motives can trigger self-regulation (“I want to get high means I have a problem - I won’t use”)
  • Stage of change: In contemplation/preparation, wanting triggers ambivalence and counter-motivation
  • Values conflict: Wanting that conflicts with values → less use; congruent → more use
  • Reactance: Some respond with “I won’t let this desire control me”

4.3.2 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “I want to get high, so I’m going to” - “I deserve to feel good” - “Life is better when I’m high” - “Desire is so strong, I can’t resist”

Path to LESS use: - “I want to get high, but that want is the PROBLEM - need to resist” - “Wanting to be high all the time means I have dependence - that scares me” - “I want to get high, but I also want [valued goal] more” - “Noticing this desire is warning sign - time to use coping skills” - “If I give in every time I want to get high, I’m not in control” - Counter-desire: “I want to get high, but ALSO want to prove I don’t need it”

4.3.3 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Urge Surfing - Good delivery
  2. Alternative Rewarding Activities (d=0.5) - Moderate delivery
  3. Cognitive Defusion - Good delivery
  4. Values + Discrepancy - Moderate delivery

4.3.4 Key Papers

  • Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations framework. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 117-128.
  • Lee, C. M., et al. (2009). Enhancement motives predict problems. Addictive Behaviors, 34(2), 130-136.

4.3.5 Bottom Line

Overlaps with craving. MODERATELY LIKELY bidirectional - awareness of motives can trigger self-regulation in preparation/action stages. Consider combining with #21.


4.4 #11 Wanting to Unplug + #12 Wanting to Forget Problems

RECOMMENDATION: COMBINE into single “Avoidance/Escapism” mechanism

Overall Rating: MODERATE
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but Problem Type/Coping Style Matter

4.4.1 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

  • Problem type: Unsolvable → use (escape makes sense); solvable → less use (using would prevent solving)
  • Coping style: Avoidant copers → use; problem-focused → less use (Wills & Hirky, 1996)
  • Problem severity: Moderate → use (escapable); severe crisis → less use (need real help)
  • Insight: Aware avoiding makes worse → less use; short-term focus → use

4.4.2 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “Need to escape from everything - world is overwhelming” - “Want to unplug from problems/responsibilities - cannabis helps” - “Can’t face reality - need to check out” - “I deserve a break from everything”

Path to LESS use: - “Want to unplug, so I’ll set boundaries and take real rest, not just get high” - “Want to unplug because overwhelmed - cannabis would avoid problems, not solve” - “When use cannabis to unplug, wake up to same problems plus guilt” - “Want to unplug tells me I’m overextended - need to address that” - “Cannabis unplugging is fake - not really resting, just avoiding” - Problem-solving: “Want to unplug, so need to simplify life, not use cannabis”

4.4.3 Best Brief Interventions

  1. Mindfulness/Acceptance (d=0.5) - Good delivery
  2. ACT (d=0.5-0.6) - Moderate delivery
  3. Problem-Solving (d=0.5) - Moderate delivery
  4. Distress Tolerance - Moderate delivery
  5. Brief MI (d=0.3-0.5) - Moderate delivery

4.4.4 Key Papers

  • Buckner, J. D., et al. (2007). Avoidance/coping motives. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11), 2238-2245.
  • Hayes, S. C., et al. (1996). Experiential avoidance framework. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1152-1168.
  • Simons, J., et al. (2005). Coping motives predict problems. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 471-477.
  • Wills, T. A., & Hirky, A. E. (1996). Coping and substance abuse model. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57(6), 613-620.

4.4.5 Bottom Line

#11 and #12 essentially identical - COMBINE into “Avoidance/Escapism.” MODERATELY LIKELY bidirectional - coping style, problem type matter. ACT/problem-solving most promising.


4.5 #14 Wanting to Have Fun

Overall Rating: MODERATE
Bidirectionality Likelihood: MODERATELY LIKELY
Type: Generally Risk but Alternatives/Anhedonia Matter

4.5.1 Research Evidence for Bidirectionality

  • Anhedonia: With anhedonia → use; without anhedonia can have fun naturally → less use
  • Activity availability: Access to fun activities → less use; without → use
  • Social context: Social fun → use (normative); solo fun → varies
  • Values: Some view substance-free fun as authentic; others view substances as part of fun

4.5.2 Psychological Processes

Path to MORE use: - “Want to have fun and cannabis makes everything more fun” - “Fun activities are better when I’m high” - “I deserve to have fun - cannabis is my way” - “Can’t have fun without cannabis - I’ve lost the ability”

Path to LESS use: - “Want fun, so I’ll find genuinely engaging activities, not just get high” - “Want REAL fun, not artificial - cannabis fun doesn’t count” - “Too depressed to have fun even with cannabis” - “Cannabis used to be fun, now it’s boring/makes me anxious”