Parent-Child Marijuana Communication: What Do Parents Say and How Is It Related to College Students Marijuana Outcomes?

Introduction: While research suggests that parents continue to influence students’ marijuana use after matriculation to college, there is limited data examining how parents communicate about marijuana and what impact parent marijuana communication has on emerging adults’ marijuana outcomes. The purpose of the current study is to investigate the types of parental messages students receive about marijuana and the relationship between parental communication and students’ marijuana outcomes.

Methods: Students (N = 311) from a mid-size, west-coast university completed an online survey assessing students’ marijuana use, approval, perceived risk, and negative consequences. In addition, students reported how often they spoke to their parents about 29 marijuana topics (e.g., benefits, risk and expectations regarding marijuana use). The majority of the students were female 65.6% and had a mean age of 18.8 years. Students were categorized as non-users (n = 156), light users (n = 85), or moderate to heavy users (n= 70).

Results: A factor analysis of parent communication items yielded 3 factors: Risk Communication about health, legal and relational problems; Permissive Communication about how to use marijuana responsibly; and Marijuana Use Communication about students’ marijuana use. The results of a MANOVA indicated significant differences in self reports of marijuana communication between non, light, and moderate-to-heavy users, Λ = .86, F(6,612) = 7.93, p < .001. Moderate-to-heavy users reported greater Permissive Communication and Marijuana Use Communication than both non users and light users (all ps < .001). In addition, Pearson’s correlation coefficients indicated that more frequent Permissive Communication and Marijuana Use Communication were associated with students reporting more marijuana related consequences (r = .23, p < .001 and r = .28, p < .001 respectively), more approving attitudes towards marijuana (r = .35, p < .001 and r = .23, p < .001 respectively), and students perceiving marijuana use to be less risky (r = -.30, p < .001 and r = -.20, p< .001, respectively).

Conclusions: While communication about the risks of marijuana was the most common form of communication, Risk Communication was not associated with student marijuana outcomes. Students who reported that their parents encouraged responsible marijuana use, talked about the benefits of marijuana, and provided tips on how to use marijuana responsibly reported more marijuana use and problems due to marijuana. Understanding how parents communicate about marijuana with emerging adults and the relationship between parental messages and marijuana outcomes could inform parent based interventions.