Table 1
Descriptive and correlation analyses.
| VARIABLE | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9. | MEAN | SD | MIN-MAX | α | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Cannabis use (yes/no) (N = 635) | – | – | – | – | – | ||||||||
| 2. | CUDIT total (N = 179) | – | – | 6.87 | 6.19 | 1–29 | .80 | |||||||
| 3. | Nu | .12** | .24** | – | 1.88 | 0.68 | 1–4 | .80 | ||||||
| 4. | Pu | .15*** | .17* | .52*** | – | 2.37 | 0.65 | 1–4 | .74 | |||||
| 5. | Lprem | .11** | .21** | .44*** | .35*** | – | 1.86 | 0.57 | 1–4 | .78 | ||||
| 6. | Lpers | .20*** | .25** | .35*** | .24*** | .43*** | – | 1.66 | 0.58 | 1–4 | .85 | |||
| 7. | Ss | .17*** | –.05 | –.02 | .18*** | .04 | –.15*** | – | 2.89 | 0.71 | 1–4 | .80 | ||
| 8. | k | –.02 | .15* | .14*** | .09* | .12** | .03 | –.03 | – | .03 | .04 | 0–0.25 | .98a | |
| 9. | SDHS | .23*** | .36*** | .39*** | .28*** | .20*** | .36*** | –.11** | –.06 | – | 1.54 | 0.53 | 1–3.67 | .78 |
[i] Note: Point-biserial correlations were used with binary variables. CUDIT = Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test; Nu = negative urgency; Pu = positive urgency; Lprem = lack of premeditation; Lpers = lack of perseverance; Ss = sensation seeking; k = discount parameter of the Monetary Choice Questionnaire for a medium amount of monetary reward; SDHS = Short Happiness and Depression Scale. Because the k parameters of the Monetary Choice Questionnaire and the total CUDIT score were skewed (skewness > 3 and > 1, respectively), analyses with these variables were performed by using their natural logarithm. The reliability indices as well as correlations between variables 3 to 9 are presented for the whole sample.
a Percentage of consistency of participants’ choices in the Monetary Choice Questionnaire for a medium amount of monetary reward.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 2
Descriptive, correlation (Pearson’s r) and reliability analyses for the cannabis consumer group only (N = 179).
| VARIABLE | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | MEAN | SD | MIN-MAX | α | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Nu | – | 2.00 | 0.70 | 1–4 | .81 | ||||||
| 2. | Pu | .51*** | – | 2.50 | 0.64 | 1–4 | .71 | |||||
| 3. | Lprem | .40*** | .32*** | – | 1.96 | 0.64 | 1–3.75 | .84 | ||||
| 4. | Lpers | .26*** | .22** | .33*** | – | 1.86 | 0.61 | 1–3.50 | .86 | |||
| 5. | Ss | –.00 | .17* | .05 | –.21** | – | 3.07 | 0.66 | 1.25–4 | .79 | ||
| 6. | k | .12 | .19* | .14 | .01 | –.05 | – | 0.03 | 1.583e–4 | 0.25 | 0.98a | |
| 7. | SDHS | .43*** | .23** | .18* | .32*** | –.06 | –.12 | – | 1.74 | 0.60 | 1–3.67 | .81 |
[i] Note: Nu = negative urgency; Pu = positive urgency; Lprem = lack of premeditation; Lpers = lack of perseverance; Ss = sensation seeking; k = discount parameter of the Monetary Choice Questionnaire for a medium amount of monetary reward; SDHS = Short Happiness and Depression Scale. Because the k parameters of the Monetary Choice Questionnaire was skewed (skewness > 3 and > 1, respectively), analyses with these variables were performed by using their natural logarithm.
a Percentage of consistency of participants’ choices in the Monetary Choice Questionnaire for a medium amount of monetary reward.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 3
Binary logistic (upper panel) and multiple linear (lower panel) regression analyses.
| OUTCOME | PREDICTOR | B | SE | WALD STATISTIC | EXP(B) | 95% CIFOR EXP(B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CANNABIS USE (YES/NO) N = 635) | ||||||
| Nu | –0.08 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.93 | 0.65, 1.31 | |
| Pu | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.46 | 1.13 | 0.80, 1.58 | |
| Lprem | –0.05 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.95 | 0.65, 1.38 | |
| Lpers | 0.71 | 0.18 | 14.68 | 2.02*** | 1.41, 2.91 | |
| Ss | 0.76 | 0.15 | 25.05 | 2.14*** | 1.59, 2.88 | |
| k | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.90, 1.12 | |
| SDHS | 0.84 | 0.20 | 18.40 | 2.31*** | 1.58, 3.39 | |
| PREDICTOR | B | SE | T | STANDARDIZED β | 95% CI FOR B | |
| CUDIT TOTAL SCORE N = 179) | ||||||
| Nu | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.37 | 0.03 | –0.05, 0.29 | |
| Pu | –0.02 | 0.13 | –0.11 | –0.01 | –0.27, 0.24 | |
| Lprem | 0.13 | 0.12 | 1.04 | 0.08 | –0.11, 0.36 | |
| Lpers | 0.17 | 0.13 | 1.33 | 0.11 | –0.08, 0.42 | |
| Ss | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.00 | –0.20, 0.22 | |
| k | 0.10 | 0.04 | 2.28 | 0.17* | 0.01, 0.17 | |
| SDHS | 0.53 | 0.13 | 3.98 | 0.34*** | 0.27, 0.79 | |
| SDHS x Nu | –0.17 | 0.19 | –0.88 | –0.07 | –0.56, 0.21 | |
| SDHS x Pu | –0.03 | 0.19 | –0.15 | –0.01 | –0.42, 0.36 | |
| SDHS x k | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 0.02 | –0.11, 0.14 |
[i] Note: CUDIT = Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test; Nu = negative urgency; Pu = positive urgency; Lprem = lack of premeditation; Lpers = lack of perseverance; Ss = sensation seeking; k = discount parameter of the Monetary Choice Questionnaire for a medium amount of monetary reward; SDHS = Short Happiness and Depression Scale. Because the k parameters of the Monetary Choice Questionnaire and the total CUDIT score were skewed (skewness > 3 and 1, respectively), analyses with these variables were performed by using their natural logarithm.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.