Fournier Lisa R, Prashad Shikha, Mouradian Hannah, Paek Andrew Y
Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164-4820, USA.
Department of Kinesiology and Educational Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
Psychol Res. 2025 Aug 4;89(4):129. doi: 10.1007/s00426-025-02139-8.
We examined whether those who chronically use cannabis (chronic users), compared to those who do not use cannabis (non-users), tend to precrastinate (start or complete a subgoal as soon as possible) and engage in reactive (vs. proactive) decision-making incurring greater potential costs in task performance and perhaps costs in cognitive and physical effort. Participants walked down a hallway and retrieved two full cups of water (one near and one far from their starting position) in the order of their choice and carried both back to their start location with the goal of not spilling. First-cup choice (near or far) and attributions of first-cup choice were recorded. Counter to expectations, chronic users tended to choose the far cup first (i.e., avoided precrastination), the more efficient choice, and this tendency was not different from non-users. Participants' attributions confirmed that those who chose the far cup first likely engaged in proactive decision-making while those who chose the near cup first likely engaged in reactive decision-making. Additionally, chronic users and non-users utilized proactive control in the AX-Continuous Performance Task even though chronic users had lower short-term and working memory span scores. These results contradict research suggesting chronic users (vs. non-users) are more impulsive, lack inhibitory control, tend to invest physical effort regardless of reward, and tend not to invest cognitive effort for reward. We suggest that chronic cannabis use may not impair decision making as profoundly as previously thought if individuals are motivated by potential consequences of their decisions in tasks with low memory demand.
我们研究了长期使用大麻者（长期使用者）与不使用大麻者（非使用者）相比，是否倾向于提前行动（尽快开始或完成一个子目标），并进行反应性（而非主动性）决策，从而在任务表现中产生更大的潜在成本，或许还会在认知和体力消耗方面产生成本。参与者沿着走廊行走，按照自己选择的顺序取回两杯满的水（一杯离起始位置近，一杯离起始位置远），并将两杯都带回起始位置，目标是不洒出水。记录第一杯水的选择（近或远）以及对第一杯水选择的归因。与预期相反，长期使用者倾向于先选择远的那杯水（即避免提前行动），这是更高效的选择，而且这种倾向与非使用者没有差异。参与者的归因证实，先选择远的那杯水的人可能进行了主动性决策，而先选择近的那杯水的人可能进行了反应性决策。此外，长期使用者和非使用者在AX连续性能任务中都运用了主动性控制，尽管长期使用者的短期和工作记忆跨度得分较低。这些结果与研究结果相矛盾，那些研究表明长期使用者（与非使用者相比）更冲动、缺乏抑制控制、倾向于无论有无奖励都投入体力，并且倾向于不为奖励投入认知努力。我们认为，如果个体受到任务中决策潜在后果的激励，且任务对记忆要求较低，那么长期使用大麻可能不会像之前认为的那样严重损害决策能力。
