Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1985, Vol. 49, No.

6, 1541-1546

Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/85/S00.75

The Effects of Marijuana on Human Physical Aggression

Rodney Myerscough and Stuart Taylor
Kent State University Thirty male undergraduates received intense provocation following their ingestion of one of three doses of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The subjects in the low-dose condition tended to respond in a more aggressive manner than the subjects in the moderate- and high-dose conditions. The subjects in the high-dose condition behaved in a relatively nonaggressive manner throughout the experimental session.

Considerable controversy has existed concerning the presumed relation between marijuana consumption and aggression. A minority of investigators have maintained that marijuana can precipitate aggressive behavior, especially when an individual experiences distortions in perception or a sense of depersonalization. Nahas (1973) concluded that a panic reaction could develop in users "who become agitated and feel threatened." He suggests that under such conditions, a "reaction to unpleasant stimuli may be violent." Most researchers have argued that, if anything, marijuana inhibits aggression. Tinklenberg (1973) concluded that "the available data on physiological and psychological effects of marijuana strongly suggests that marijuana does not usually induce violence, aggressive or sexually aggressive behavior." According to Ausubel (1958), "marihuana by virtue of its stupefying effects, may sometimes inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses." A review of the experimental research on the instigating effects of marijuana indicates that very few studies have actually manipulated marijuana consumption and monitored interpersonal aggression. Salzman, Van Der Kolk, and Shader (1976) reported a series of studies on the effect of marijuana on verbal hostility in a small group setting. The authors reported that intoxicated subjects evidenced a reduction in irritability and hostile feelings as compared to sober controls. Taylor et al. (1976) investigated the effect of marijuana on direct, physical aggression. Sub-

jects ingested a high or low dose of either alcohol (1.5 vs. .5 oz. per 40 Ibs.) or delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol (.3 vs. .1 mg per kilogram). Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The subjects were given the opportunity to shock increasingly provocative opponents while competing in a task involving reaction time. According to the results of the study, the subjects in the high-dose alcohol condition set significantly higher levels of shock than the subjects in the low-dose condition. On the other hand, the high dose of THC did not facilitate aggressive responding. In fact, there was a tendency for the high dose of THC to produce a suppression effect. The major purpose of the present study was to extend the results of the Taylor et al. study by examining the effects of a larger dose of marijuana on shock setting behavior. The specific doses of THC administered were .1, .25, and .4 mg/kg. The secondary purpose of the study was to observe the effects of a more intense level of provocation on the shock-setting behavior of the intoxicated subjects. In the Taylor et al. study, provocation was manipulated by programming the opponent to gradually increase his shock intensity. In the present study, the opponent set intense shocks throughout the experimental session. The subjects in the Taylor et al. study were given the choice of selecting 1 of 10 shock intensities on each trial. The most intense shock available for selection, Number 10, corresponded to the presumed opponent's "unpleasantness" threshold, that is, that shock intensity that the opponent had previously This research was supported in pan by National Institute judged to be highly unpleasant. In this study, of Drug Abuse, Grant DA01444 to Stuart Taylor. Requests for reprints should be sent to Stuart P. Taylor, the subjects and their presumed opponent were Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, given the option of delivering an electric shock Ohio, 44242. that corresponded to twice the opponent's un1541

1542

RODNEY MYERSCOUGH AND STUART TAYLOR beginning of each trial, he was instructed to select (by pressing 1 of 11 buttons) any one of the 11 intensities of shock he wished his opponent to receive. The first 10 buttons were labeled 1 to 10. The button labeled 10 corresponded to the subject's unpleasantness threshold. Number 9 was set at 95% of the maximum, Number 8 at 90% of the maximum, 7 at 85% of the maximum, and so forth. The eleventh button was designated as 20 and was purportedly set at twice the intensity of the 10th button. The subject was informed that the shock would be administered to his opponent at the end of a trial if he were faster than his opponent and that he would receive the shock his opponent set for him if his opponent were faster. Thus, he realized that either he or his opponent would receive a shock, depending upon the outcome of the competition and that both could select the intensity of the shock the other would receive. Regardless of who won, the subject was able to see, after each trial, what level of shock his opponent had set for him by observing which of 11 lights corresponding to the 11 shock settings was lit. The frequency of wins and losses and the amount of shock received were programmed by the experimenter. The task was then begun. All subjects competed for 33 trials. These consisted, first of all, of 5, 6-trial blocks of high provocation. The mean shock intensity set by the opponent during these three blocks of trials was eight, with shock settings varying from seven to nine. The subjects received shock on one half of these trials, indicating that they had lost the trial. On two occasions (Trials 19 and 26), the opponent was programmed to attempt to deliver a 20-level shock that was presumably twice as strong as pain threshold. On these two occasions, the subjects won and did not receive this shock; they just observed the 20 feedback light flash. Finally, Trial 33 measured the subject's reaction to the feedback of Trial 32.

pleasantness threshold. During the experimental session, the opponent was programmed to attempt to administer the high-magnitude shock to the subject on two separate occasions. It was hypothesized that the use of this highmagnitude shock would vary, inversely, as a function of the dose of THC consumed. Method Subjects
The subjects were 30 male undergraduates, over 18 years of age, attending Kent State University. Subjects were attracted by folders placed in buildings on campus. On the cover of each folder was a request for paid volunteers for a psychological experiment. The possible use of drugs was not mentioned in the folder. Potential subjects were contacted by phone and informed that the experiment concerned the effects of marijuana on perceptual-motor skills, that they would receive $2.00 per hour for their participation, and that the experiment would be conducted at the University Health Center. The subjects were then scheduled for a preliminary interview with the director of the health center. Prior to the interview, the subjects completed a drug use questionnaire and signed a statement acknowledging that they had some experience with marijuana and knew that they could terminate their services at any time without penalty. The subjects also authorized the director of the health center to examine their health records in order to rule out any medical contraindications to their participation in the experiment.

Procedure
Upon arriving at the health center, the subject was weighed and escorted to a cubicle containing a bed, a chair, and a nightstand. Before the drug was consumed, the subject signed another consent form acknowledging that he was informed of the drug that might be used in the experiment and that electric shock would be administered. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of the following conditions: low dose (. 1 mg per kg body weight), medium dose (.25 mg per kg body weight) and high dose (.4 mg per kg body weight). Subjects consumed THC obtained from the National Institutes of Health as a 97% pure solution in absolute alcohol, and prepared as an aqueous suspension with polyvinyl-pyrrolidone. This suspension was added to 240 ml of ginger ale. Fifty minutes after the drink was consumed, the subject was escorted to a small cubicle that contained the task board. The subject was seated by the experimenter and a concentric shock electrode was attached to his left wrist. The subject then observed the experimenter (on a TV monitor) place an electrode on the presumed male opponent's wrist. The monitor was turned off and the subject's and the confederate opponent's "unpleasantness" thresholds for shock were assessed separately by administering a series of increasing shock intensities. Each subject was informed by means of a tape-recorded message that he was competing in a task involving reaction time with another subject in an adjoining room. At the

Results On the first trial, subjects were required to select a shock intensity without any knowledge of the opponents' aggressive intentions. Thus, an analysis of initial settings should indicate the influence of marijuana on aggression in the absence of provocative stimulation. An analysis of variance ANOVA performed on the subject's initial trial mean shock settings revealed no differential dose effects. Mean initial shock settings for low-, medium-, and highdose conditions were 2.6, 3.1, and 3.5, respectively. During competition, all subjects had the opportunity to administer one of 11 levels of shock to their opponent. Although Levels 1 through 10 represented varying percentages of the "unpleasantness" threshold, Level 20 represented twice the magnitude of this threshold. In order to be able to include all settings in the analysis of mean shock settings, a value of 11 was assigned to the 20 shock setting. This,

THE EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA

1543

of course, is a highly conservative assignment because the subjects certainly responded to this option as representing more than a value of 11. A 3 X 5 ANOVA was then performed on the mean shock intensities set by the subjects in the various drug groups during the blocks of increasing provocation. According to this analysis, the main effect of drug dose was not significant. The blocks effect proved to be highly significant, F(4, 108) = 3.72, p < .01. Mean shock settings for blocks one through five were, 5.43, 5.68, 5.92, 6.14, and 6.27, respectively. The Dose X Block interaction was not significant at the .05 level. However, an inspection of the mean shock settings, presented in Figure 1, appear to indicate that the low-dose group responded more aggressively during the last two blocks than the mediumand high-dose groups. Subsequent NewmanKeuls tests tend to support this perception. The low-dose subjects set significantly higher shocks in blocks four and five than the subjects in the medium- and high-dose groups. Furthermore, only the low-dose group set significantly higher shocks in Block 5 than Block 1. Proportions of 20-level shocks were calculated for those blocks before the opponent's first selection of the 20 button (Block 1,2, and 3), the block following the first instance in which the opponent set the 20 button (Block 4) and the block following the second instance in which the opponent set the 20 button (Block 5). An ANOVA was performed on the arc-sine transformed proportions of 20s set by the three drug groups on Blocks 1 through 5 (Myers, 1972). According to this analysis, the main effect of drug groups was significant at less than the .01 level, F(2,27) = 7.45. The mean transformed proportions of 20-level shocks set by the subjects in the low, medium and high dose conditions were .213, .029 and .046, respectively. The mean proportion of 20-level shocks set for the opponent increased significantly as a function of blocks, F(4,108) = 8.10, p < .001. The mean transformed proportions of 20s set on each of the five blocks of trials, averaged over groups, were .00, .00, .037,. 179, and .264, respectively. The interaction of groups and blocks was also significant, ^8, 108) = 2.51, p < .05. According to this interaction, subjects who received a low dose of marijuana were

8.00 -

o o A

o LOW DOSE o MODERATE DOSE A HIGH DOSE

7.00-

6.00-

5.00

4.00

3
BLOCKS

Figure 1. Mean shock settings as a function of dose and blocks.

more likely to retaliate with the 20 button than were subjects who received a lower dose. It will be recalled that during the competitive task, subjects were provoked with a 20level shock on Trials 19 and 26. In order to assess the immediate impact of this intense provocation on the subject's aggressive behavior, an ANOVA was performed on the shock intensities set on the trials immediately preceeding and following provocation. A 3 X 2 X 2 (Dose X First and Second Provocative Event X Pre-Postprovocation Trial) ANOVA indicated that the Dose X Pre-Postprovocation Trial interaction was significant, F(2,27) = 3.35, p < .05. According to this interaction, as presented in Figure 2, only the low-dose group appeared to respond to the intense provocation on Trials 19 and 26 by increasing their shock settings. Subsequent Newman-Keuls tests showed that the low-dose subjects set significantly higher shocks after receiving the information that the opponent set the 20-level shock than before receiving this information. High- and mediumdose subjects, on the other hand, did not significantly increase their shock settings as a function of intense provocation. According to a 3 X 5 ANOVA (Drug Dose X

1544

RODNEY MYERSCOUGH AND STUART TAYLOR

o LOW DOSE o MODERATE DOSE HIGH DOSE

8.00-

EJ
CO

analyses, the main effect of drug dose was not significant. Thus, the dose of marijuana did not appear to influence the subjects' shock thresholds or subjective evaluation of the painfulness of the shocks. Discussion Because of constant pressure from law enforcement agencies, congressional representatives, and the public, a number of highly distinguished inquiries have been made concerning the presumed relation between marijuana consumption and aggressive behavior (e.g., Cannabis: A Report of the Commission of Inquiry Into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, 1972; The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, 1972). These inquiries found little evidence of a positive relation between marijuana use and aggressive behavior. The Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse concluded that, "Rather than inducing violent or aggressive behavior . . . marijuana was usually found to inhibit expression of aggressive impulses . . ." (p. 72). Summarizing the results of several commissions that have investigated the possible role of marijuana in criminal behavior, Tinklenberg and Murphy (1972) noted, "the behavioral effects of marijuana do not usually incite violent or sexual crimes: rather, the use of marijuana may reduce the possibility of aggression in most people" (p. 184). Although the possible relation between marijuana and aggression has been examined quite extensively, evidence available to investigators has been limited. Researchers have had to rely upon anecdotal evidence, retrospective case histories and correlational studies (e.g., studies of the relation between marijuana use and violent crime). There are numerous problems inherent in these approaches. For example, they rely on the often unreliable selfreports of witnesses and do not attempt to substantiate the presence of marijuana in the presumed perpetrators. The experimental research that has been available to the commissions and reviewers has also been problematic. A major concern is the fact that this research has relied on such indirect measures of aggression as fantasy inventories, self-report questionnaires, and mood states. Thus, instead of measuring actual harming behaviors, investigators have assessed aggressive dispositions.

8
1
5.00

6.00

PRE
PROVOCATION

POST

Figure 2. Mean shock settings as a function of dose and provocation.

Blocks) performed on mean reaction times, neither the main effect of drug dose nor the interaction of dose and blocks approached an acceptable level of significance. However, when the error variance introduced by the mediumdose condition was removed by performing a separate analysis on the low- and high-dose conditions, the main effect of dose, F(\, 16) = 5.65, p < .05, and blocks, F(4, 72) = 2.73, p < .05, was significant. The high-dose subjects were found to have significantly longer latencies than the low-dose subjects. Furthermore, all subjects evidenced a tendency to increase (i.e., slow down) their reaction times from Block 1 to Block 3 and decrease their reaction times from Block 3 to Block 5. Following the competition, all subjects completed a questionnaire designed to assess their subjective reactions to the task. One item on the questionnaire instructed the subjects to estimate the subjective effect of the drug they consumed. The subjects were asked to rate, on an 8-point scale, "How much of an effect did the drug have? That is, how different did you feel after you consumed the drug?" An analysis performed on these ratings indicated that the drug effect varied, significantly, as a function of dose, F(2, 7) = 8.82, p < .01. The mean ratings of the subjects in the high-, mediumand low-dose conditions were 5.2, 3.2, and 1.8. The subjects' "unpleasantness" shock thresholds and posttask shock unpleasantness ratings were subjected to separate ANOVAS. In both

THE EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA

1545

Contemporary researchers have been particularly critical of these indirect measures. Carpenter and Armenti (1972) stated, for example, "Aggression indirectly observed is supposed to imply that direct aggression would occur if circumstances allowed it, but only indicants of that possibility are observed. However, there is some doubt as to whether this is true" (p. 533-534). In the experiment conducted by Taylor et al. (1976) subjects were provoked following ingestion of a high or low dose of marijuana. Physical aggression was measured directly by means of electric shock. The high dose of marijuana was not found to increase aggressive behavior. In fact, there was a tendency for the high dose to inhibit aggressive responding. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the combination of a higher dose of marijuana and more intense provocation would instigate aggressive responding. The results of this study are consistent with the findings reported by Taylor et al. and are congruent with a growing consensus among drug investigators that marijuana does not instigate, precipitate, or enhance aggressive behavior. First of all, shock-setting behavior did not vary as a function of dosage on the first trial, that is, prior to the subjects receiving information concerning the aggressive intentions of the opponent. Second, shock-setting behavior during the competition did not increase more rapidly among the intoxicated subjects. In fact, whereas the subjects in the low-dose group increased their shock settings over blocks, the subjects in the high-dose group evidenced considerable stability in their shock settings. The high-dose subjects set relatively low-intensity shocks initially and throughout the competitive session. Third, all subjects had the opportunity to shock their opponent with a level of shock twice that of their opponent's shock threshold. The results indicated that the low-dose subjects were significantly more willing to use this extreme level of retaliation than either the moderate- or high-dose subjects. Finally, the results revealed that only the lowdose group evidenced a significant increase in shock settings following the threat of receiving the 20-level shock. Consistent with the other measures, the subjects in the high-dose group appeared to be reluctant to retaliate. While the results observed in this study in-

dicate that marijuana does not facilitate aggressive behavior, it could be argued that no intoxicant, irrespective of its pharmacological properties, would enhance aggressive responding in the competitive, reaction time situation. Numerous studies conducted in our laboratory dispute this argument. Alcohol, for example, has been found to influence first trial shocksetting behavior, increase shock settings during conditions of provocation, and enhance the use of 20-level shocks (e.g., Taylor & Gammon, 1975, 1976; Taylor, Schmutte, Leonard & Cranston, 1979). One possible explanation for the results of this experiment is that the THC produced an apathetic or lethargic state. Such a state could have reduced the subject's involvement in the competitive task. Two findings argue against this possibility. First of all, it will be recalled that all groups evidenced a reduction in response latencies from the first to the third block. Following the observation of the 20-level shock, all subjects noticeably improved their reaction times. Second, following the competition, all subjects were asked to rate how important it was for them to win on the task. An analysis of these ratings revealed no significant difference as a function of dose. Thus, the marijuana did not appear to appreciably reduce the subject's motivation to compete successfully in the task. Another possible explanation for the differential effects of the THC concerns the presumed analgesic properties of marihuana (Noyes, Brunk, Baram, & Canter, 1975). It could be argued that if the high dose of THC anesthesized the subjects, then perhaps they did not feel as much pain from the shocks as the low-dose subjects. If so, they may not have been provoked as intensely as the subjects in the low-dose condition. There was little evidence to support this explanation. For example, there were no significant differences in the subjective ratings of the painfulness of the electric shocks as a function of dose. There appears to be considerable agreement among investigators that marijuana consumption produces feelings of well-being, relaxation, and peacefulness. Tart (1970) has characterized the effects of marijuana intoxication as being "either emotionally pleasing or cognitively interesting" (p. 704). Jaffe (1975) reported that "Most commonly there is an in-

1546

RODNEY MYERSCOUGH AND STUART TAYLOR

creased sense of well-being or euphoria" (p. Carpenter, J. & Armenti, N. (1972). Some effects of ethanol on human sexual and aggressive behavior. In B. Kissin 306). Hofmann (1975) observed that the con& H. Begleiter (Eds.). The biology of alcoholism: Physsumption of marijuana is followed ". . . by iology and behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 509-543). New York: feelings of well-being, relaxation, and tranPlenum Press. quility in most people" (p. 202). The most Donnerstein, E., Donnerstein, M., & Evans, R. (1975). Erotic stimuli and aggression: Facilitation or inhibition? parsimonious explanation for the results of this Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 237study would appear to be that the phenome244. nological state produced by THC is simply in- Hofmann, F. A. (1975). A handbook on drug and alcohol compatible with the expression of physical abuse. New York: Oxford University Press. aggression. This interpretation is certainly Jaffe, J. (1975). Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse. In L. S. Goodman & A. Oilman (Eds.), The Pharmacological congruent with contemporary perspectives Basis ofTherapeutics (5th ed. pp. 284-325). New York: concerning the inhibition of aggressive behavMacmillan. ior (Baron, 1983). A number of investigators Myers, J. (1972). Fundamentals of experimental design. have proposed that positive or pleasurable afBoston: AUyn & Bacon. ( fective states, such as mild sexual arousal Nahas, G. (1973). MarijuanaDeceptive weed. New "Vbrk: Raven Press. (Donnerstein, Donnerstein, & Evans, 1975), National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse and humor (Baron, 1978), elicit reactions that (1972). Raymond P. Shafer, chairman. Marijuana: A are incompatible with aggression. signal of misunderstanding. New York: New American Library. One must, of course, exercise some caution in generalizing from these results to other sub- Noyes, R., Brunk, F., Baram, D., & Canter, A. (1975). Analgesic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. The ject populations or social settings. Future reJournal of Clinical Pharmacology, 15, 139-143. search should investigate the influence of Salzman, C., Van Der Kolk, B. A., & Shader, R. (1976). marijuana on the aggressive behavior of indiMarijuana and hostility in a small group setting. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133, 1029-1033. viduals with aggressive or psychopathic tendencies. Effort should also be expended to de- Tart, C. (1970). Marijuana intoxication: Common experiences. Nature, 226, 701-704. termine whether marijuana would enhance Taylor, S., & Gammon, C. (1975). The effects of type and aggressive responses under conditions of more dose of alcohol on human physical aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 169-175. intense threat or third-party instigation. It should also be recognized that the situation in Taylor, S., & Gammon, C. (1976). Aggressive behavior of intoxicated subjects: The effect of third-party intervenwhich these subjects participated was very tion. Journal of Studies in Alcohol, 37, 917-930. structured and differed in many ways from ev- Taylor, S., Schmutte, G., Leonard, K., & Cranston, J. eryday social situations. (1979). The effects of alcohol and extreme provocation on the use of a highly noxious electric shock. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 73-81. References Taylor, S., Vardaris, R., Rawitch, A., Gammon, C., Cranston, J., & Lubetkin, A. (1976). The effects of alcohol Ausubel, D. (1958). Drug addition: Physiological, psychoand delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on human physical logical, and sociological aspects. New York: Random aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 2, 153-161. House. Baron, R. (1978). Aggression-inhibiting influence of sexual Tinklenberg, J. (1973). Drugs and crime. In Drug use in humor. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36, America: Problem in perspective, Vol. I: Patterns and 189-197. consequences of drug use (pp. 242-299). Washington, Baron, R. (1983). The control of human aggression: A DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. strategy based on incompatible responses. In R. Green Tinklenberg, J., & Murphy, P. (1972). Marihuana and & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and crime: A survey report. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, empirical reviews (pp. 173-190). New \brk: Academic 5, 183-191. Press.
Cannabis: A Report of the Commission of Inquiry Into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. (1972). Ottawa: Information Canada.

Received October 22, 1984 Revision received December 21, 1984