Perceived Risk of Emerging Recreational Drugs: Impact of Anecdotal and Statistical Evidence

• Author: Kevin Michael Gutierrez,Lawrence D. Cohn
• Published date: 01 July 2018
• Date: 01 July 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0022042618770632
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042618770632

Journal of Drug Issues

2018, Vol. 48(3) 435 –451

© The Author(s) 2018

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022042618770632

journals.sagepub.com/home/jod

Article

Perceived Risk of Emerging

Recreational Drugs: Impact of

Anecdotal and Statistical Evidence

Kevin Michael Gutierrez1†

and Lawrence D. Cohn2

Abstract

This study investigated the relative impact of personal stories and base rate evidence on the

perceived risk of using two emerging recreational drugs: kratom and Spice. A 3 × 2 × 2 mixed-

methods design was employed. Four hundred fifty-three young adults were randomly assigned

to read internet postings that presented either 1) base rate information depicting the frequency

of adverse reactions to Spice and kratom; 2) base rate information plus four personal web-

postings describing beneficial reactions to Spice and kratom; or 3) base rate information plus

four personal web-postings describing adverse reactions to Spice and kratom. Respondents

subsequently evaluated the risk of using both drugs. Anecdotal evidence (personal stories)

outweighed the impact of base rate evidence only when the personal stories described adverse

drug reactions. Effective risk communication will benefit from differential use of both base rate

evidence and personal stories.

Keywords

perceived risk, emerging recreational drugs, narrative evidence versus statistical evidence

The recreational use of emerging drugs of abuse is a growing public health concern (Corazza,

Parrott, & Demetrovics, 2017; Mounteney et al., 2015; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2018a,

2018b). Spice and related synthetic cannabinoids are often marketed as legal alternatives to mari-

juana, but a growing body of evidence indicates that these legal drugs can produce dangerously

high blood pressure, delusions, and paranoia (Johnson, Johnson, & Alfonzo, 2011; Zimmerman

et al., 2009). Calls to U.S. Poison Centers regarding Spice, K2, and other synthetic cannabinoids

rose from 13 calls in 2009 to almost 7,794 in 2015 (American Association of Poison Control

Centers, 2018). Yet, little is known about how young adults perceive and evaluate the health risks

associated with using novel and emerging recreational drugs. The current study addressed this

gap in knowledge.

1University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, USA

2Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso, USA

†Deceased September 19, 2017

Corresponding Author:

Lawrence D. Cohn, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA.

Email: Lcohn@utep.edu

770632JODXXX10.1177/0022042618770632Journal of Drug IssuesGutierrez and Cohn

research-article2018

436 Journal of Drug Issues 48(3)

Risk Perception

Risk perception underlies many health-related decisions and serves as a central component of

several models of health behavior (Ferrer & Klein, 2015; Sheeran, Harris, & Epton, 2014). For

example, protection motivation theory (PMT) posits that risk perception is a function of two fac-

tors: perceived vulnerability to a particular threat (e.g., likelihood of experiencing an adverse

drug reaction) and perceived severity of the threat. Both perceptions influence overall threat

appraisal, which subsequently affects one’s motivation to engage in health threatening behavior.

Similarly, the health belief model (HBM) posits that risk perception is influenced by the per-

ceived susceptibility to a threat and the perceived seriousness of the threat. Several findings also

suggest that the formation of risk perceptions is influenced by several additional factors, includ-

ing personality dispositions, contextual issues, and numeracy level (Ferrer & Klein, 2015).

Historically, the majority of theories that sought to explain the process of risk evaluation were

conceptualized as primarily analytical. Such theories assumed that individuals consciously weigh

the risks and benefits of possible outcomes before arriving at logical, reasoned, decisions to

engage or not engage in particular behaviors (Leiserowitz, 2006). Investigators subsequently

recognized the role of affect in risk perception and evaluation. The role of affect is elaborated in

dual information processing models that describe the routes by which one evaluates risk (Chaiken

& Trope, 1999). These two distinct processing “routes” are referred to as the experiential system

or System 1, and the analytic system or System 2. The experiential system is characterized as

reflexive, affect oriented, and instinctual, whereas the analytic system is characterized as more

logical, reason oriented, and deliberate. The experiential system utilizes intuition and gut-based

emotionally laden visceral reactions in the assessment of risk, whereas the analytic system uti-

lizes logic, reason, and statistical thought in the assessment of risk (Slovic, Peters, Finucane, &

MacGregor, 2005).

The latter two systems have implications for understanding how individuals weigh the relative

importance of anecdotal information and statistical information when evaluating the risk of using

emerging recreational drugs. Anecdotal information will likely activate the experiential system,

and statistical information will likely activate the analytic system. The current research investi-

gates how individuals respond to both types of information when evaluating the risk of using new

recreational drugs.

Emerging Recreational Drugs of Abuse

Coulson and Caulkins (2011) identified 63 emerging recreational drugs that were subject to legal

restrictions during the past 40 years: phencyclidine (PCP, that is, angel dust) and nitrite inhalants

(i.e., poppers) in the 1970s, crack and methamphetamine (i.e., ice) in the 1980s, ecstasy and other

club drugs (e.g., 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA], γ-hydroxybutyric acid

[GHB]) in the 1990s and 2000s, and synthetic marijuana (e.g., Spice, K2, Genie) and synthetic

amphetamines (“bath salts”) since 2009. By 2015, more than 560 new psychoactive substances

(NPSs) were reported to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

(EMCDDA), and approximately 70% of the latter NPSs were detected between 2011 and 2016

(Pirona et al., 2017). Yet, large-scale surveys of drug use do not typically assess NPS use or the

perceived harmfulness of using new substances. For example, Spice was available in the United

States in the early 2000, but national data regarding its perceived harmfulness were not collected

until 2011 (Johnston et al., 2013a).

The prevalence of NPS use varies by subgroup. For example, a telephone survey of 13,128

European adolescents and adults, aged 15 to 24, revealed lifetime prevalence use of less than 8%

(Pirona et al., 2017). However, the lifetime use of NPS was 4 to 25 times higher (depending upon

the substance) among 25,790 young adult Internet survey respondents who regularly visited