ArticlePloS one2024
The Reddit cannabis subjective highness rating scale: Applying computational social science to explore psychological and environmental correlates of naturalistic cannabis use.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A mixed-methods analysis of a do-it-yourself e-cigarette community on Reddit.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Social media data provide unprecedented access to discussions of active, naturalistic, and often real-time cannabis use in an era of cannabis policy liberalization. The aim of this study was to explore psychological and environmental correlates of cannabis effects by applying computational social science approaches to a large dataset of unprompted reports of naturalistic cannabis use with corresponding self-reported numerical ratings of subjective highness. Post title text was extracted via the Pushshift dataset from N = 328,865 posts to the r/trees Reddit community, where posters self-assess and disclose how high they feel on a scale from 1 to 10 (M = 6.9, SD = 1.8). Structural topic modelling and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) dictionary-based approaches were applied to identify (1) frequently discussed topics and (2) text indicative of 5 psychological processes (affective, social, cognitive, perceptual, biological), respectively, as well as to examine relationships between subjective highness and (1) topic prevalence and (2) psychological process word counts. A 40-topic model was selected for interpretation based on semantic coherence and exclusivity. The most discussed topics in a 40-topic model were characterized by references to smoking places, social contexts, positive affect, cognitive states, as well as food and media consumed. In LIWC dictionary analyses, words mentioning affective, social, and cognitive processes were referenced more often than perceptual or body processes. Posters reported greater subjective highness when using language that referred to in-person social environments and lower subjective highness when using language that referred to online social environments and positive affect psychological states. This examination of unprompted online reports of naturalistic cannabis use identified textual content referring to affect and to other people as being associated with perceived effects of cannabis. These affective and social aspects of the cannabis use experience were salient to active posters in this online community and should be integrated into experience sampling methods and behavioral pharmacology research, as well as public health messaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.