Consciousness and Cognition 56 (2017) 68–76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Consciousness and Cognition

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/concog

Inspired by Mary Jane? Mechanisms underlying enhanced MARK

creativity in cannabis users
⁎
Emily M. LaFrancea, , Carrie Cuttlera,b
a
Washington State University, Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 644820, Pullman, WA 99164-4820, USA
b
Translational Addiction Research Center, Washington State University, USA

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Previous research suggests cannabis may enhance some aspects of creativity, although the results
Cannabis remain somewhat equivocal. Moreover, it is unclear whether differences in cannabis users’
Creativity personalities may account for any potentially beneficial effects of cannabis on creativity. This
Divergent thinking study was designed to examine whether sober cannabis users demonstrate superior self-reported
Convergent thinking
and objective creativity test performance relative to non-users, and to determine whether any of
Openness to experience
Big 5 personality
the Big 5 personality domains underlie these effects. A sample of sober cannabis users (n = 412)
and non-users (n = 309) completed measures of cannabis consumption, personality, self-re-
ported and objective creativity. Relative to non-users, sober cannabis users self-reported higher
creativity, and performed significantly better on a measure of convergent thinking. Controlling
for cannabis users’ higher levels of openness to experience abolished these effects. Therefore,
while cannabis users appear to demonstrate enhanced creativity, these effects are an artifact of
their heightened levels of openness to experience.

1. Introduction

Enhanced creativity is a commonly reported consequence of cannabis use. In fact, many highly acclaimed artists, musicians,
writers, and great minds have attributed some of their creative successes to cannabis use, suggesting that cannabis can facilitate
creative thought processes. Musician and composer Louis Armstrong referred to cannabis as “an assistant – a friend” (Brothers, 2014),
the late founder and CEO of Apple. Inc., Steve Jobs, once said that cannabis made him “relaxed and creative,” (Heisler, 2012), and
Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys attributed the completion of his critically acclaimed album, Pet Sounds, to cannabis (Wenzel, 2015). In
line with this anecdotal evidence, studies have found that cannabis users report heightened creativity during intoxication (Cuttler,
Mischley, & Sexton, 2016; Green, Kavanagh, & Young, 2003; Sandberg, 2012). Despite the popular belief that cannabis increases
creativity, the scientific literature investigating the relationship between cannabis and creativity remains somewhat sparse and
equivocal.
Creativity is defined as the ability to contribute novel and relevant solutions to a problem (Runco, 2007), and has traditionally
been split into two categories; divergent, and convergent thinking (Guilford, 1967). Divergent thinking involves coming up with
many novel and different potential solutions to a problem, while convergent thinking is the process of coming up with one specific,
fixed solution to a problem. Divergent and convergent thinking are dissociable, well-established creative processes
(Chermahini & Hommel, 2010) which are thought to correspond to individual differences in cognitive flexibility and cognitive
persistence, two related but distinct cognitive functions (De Dreu, Nijstad, Baas, Wolsink, & Roskes, 2012). Although true creativity is

⁎
Corresponding author at: Washington State University, Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 644820, Johnson Tower, Pullman, WA 99164-4820, USA.
E-mail addresses: emily.lafrance@wsu.edu (E.M. LaFrance), carrie.cuttler@wsu.edu (C. Cuttler).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.10.009
Received 17 July 2017; Received in revised form 21 September 2017; Accepted 10 October 2017
1053-8100/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
E.M. LaFrance, C. Cuttler Consciousness and Cognition 56 (2017) 68–76

far more nuanced and complex than divergent and convergent thinking, these two domains of creativity are commonly the focus of
research on creativity because of their importance in the generation of novel and useful solutions to problems.
The legal classification of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug in the United States imposes challenges to researchers interested in
studying the acute effects of cannabis (Holt & Kaufman, 2010). Nevertheless, the bulk of previous research on cannabis and creativity
has examined the influence of acute cannabis intoxication on creativity test performance. The results of this research suggest that low
doses of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) may enhance divergent thinking relative to high doses or a placebo (Curran, Brignell,
Fletcher, Middleton, & Henry, 2002; Jones, Blagrove, & Parrott, 2009; Kowal et al., 2015; Schafer et al., 2012; Weckowicz et al.,
1975), though these findings have not always been consistent (Bourassa & Vaugeois, 2001; Tinklenberg, Darley, Roth,
Pfefferbaum, & Kopell, 1978).
The results pertaining to the acute effects of cannabis on convergent thinking are even less clear cut. Specifically, two studies
found that THC perturbs convergent thinking relative to a placebo (Schafer et al., 2012; Weckowicz et al., 1975) and one study found
no impact of high or low doses of THC on convergent thinking relative to a placebo (Kowal et al., 2015). On a related note, there is
evidence that cannabis reduces inhibition, or the ability to suppress incorrect or inappropriate responses/solutions (Broyd, van Hell,
Beale, Yucel, & Solowij, 2016; Hart, van Gorp, Haney, Foltin, & Fischman, 2001; Hooker & Jones, 1987; Metrik et al., 2012). This
reduction in inhibition may impair convergent thinking, which requires inhibiting incorrect solutions, while enhancing divergent
thinking, which requires generating many different possible solutions (Chermahini & Hommel, 2010; Hommel, 2012; Kowal et al.,
2015;).
Far less is known about whether cannabis users who are not under the direct influence of cannabis demonstrate enhanced
creativity relative to non-users. Nevertheless, a small number of previous studies have investigated this possibility. First, Victor,
Grossman, and Eisenman (1973), Todd and Goldstein (1977), and Eisenman, Grossman, and Goldstein (1980), found that frequency
of cannabis use was positively related to self-reported creativity. Second, both Weckowicz, Collier, and Spreng (1977), and Jones
et al. (2009) found that compared to non-users, sober cannabis users performed better on divergent thinking tasks. To our knowledge,
no previous research has attempted to compare the convergent thinking test performance of sober cannabis users relative to non-
users.
One major concern with quasi-experimental research comparing pre-existing groups of cannabis users to non-users is that these
groups are known to differ in other ways that may impact creativity. Cannabis users are higher in openness to experience (Eisenman
et al., 1980; Fridberg, Vollmer, O'Donnell, & Skosnik, 2011; Hogan, Mankin, Conway, & Sherman, 1970; Terraciano, Lockenhoff,
Crum, Bienvenu, & Costa, 2008; Victor et al., 1973), lower in agreeableness (Fridberg, Vollmer, O'Donnell, & Skosnik, 2011;
Terraciano et al., 2008), lower in conscientiousness (Fridberg, Vollmer, O'Donnell, & Skosnik, 2011; Hogan et al., 1970; Terraciano
et al., 2008), and are more adventuresome (Kay, Lyons, Newman, Mankin, & Loeb, 1978; Weckowicz et al., 1977). Moreover, there is
evidence that higher openness to experience is linked to creativity (Kaufman, 2013) and that higher levels of extraversion
(Singh & Kaushik, 2015; Sung & Choi, 2009) and lower levels of conscientiousness may also predict higher levels of creativity (Feist,
1998; Guastello, 2008). Therefore, it is possible that cannabis users’ higher self-reported creativity (Eisenman et al., 1980;
Todd & Goldstein, 1977; Victor et al., 1973), and their superior divergent thinking test performance (Jones et al., 2009; Weckowicz
et al., 1977) may be driven by these pre-existing personality differences rather than regular cannabis use directly affecting creativity,
per se. To our knowledge no one has investigated personality as a possible mechanism underlying the relationship between cannabis
use and creativity.

1.1. Study objectives and hypotheses

The question of whether cannabis use enhances creativity is of great theoretical, psychological, and cultural interest, and results
of previous research on the subject have been somewhat mixed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to further elucidate the
nature of the relationship between cannabis and creativity. Specifically, the first objective was to examine whether sober cannabis
users show enhanced divergent and convergent thinking test performance. The second objective was to examine whether sober
cannabis users report higher levels of creativity using standardized self-report measures of creativity. Finally, the third objective was
to explore the Big Five personality traits as possible mechanisms underlying the putative links between cannabis use and creativity.
We hypothesized that relative to non-users, cannabis users would demonstrate superior performance on a test of divergent thinking,
but not convergent thinking; that cannabis users would report higher levels of creative ability and achievements; and that openness to
experience would underlie these effects.

2. Methods

2.1. Participant recruitment

A total of 979 undergraduate students were recruited from the Washington State University Department of Psychology subject
pool. Participants were compensated with course credit in exchange for research participation. A student sample was selected because
cannabis use is most frequent among young adults (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2016),
and the sample was readily accessible, allowing us to collect sufficient data to power analyses to detect small sized effects. Speci-
fically, a power analysis indicated that a sample of 787 participants would be needed to have power of 0.80 to detect small sized
effects (ηp2 = 0.01) with alpha set at 0.05.

69
E.M. LaFrance, C. Cuttler Consciousness and Cognition 56 (2017) 68–76

Table 1
Demographic characteristics broken down by group.

Non-users (N = 309) Cannabis users (N = 412)

Age 20.10 (2.58) 20.12 (2.44) t(618) = −0.10, p = .92

Years of University 1.89 (1.01) 1.98 (1.06) t(708) = −1.09, p = .27
% White 64.7% 76% χ2(1) = 10.88, p = .001
% Female 78% 67.6% χ2(1) = 9.52, p = .002

2.2. Exclusion/inclusion criteria

The only exclusion criteria were reporting acute cannabis intoxication during study participation, and evidence of random re-
sponding, which was measured by interspersing the 10 items from the deviant responding validity subscale of the Psychopathic
Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) throughout the survey. A total of 84 participants (8.6% of the total sample)
endorsed five or more of the PPI items in an aberrant manner and were excluded from all analyses. Additionally, 48 participants
(5.4% of the remaining sample) reported being high during study participation and were excluded.
Moreover, in order to be included, participants had to be at least 18 years old and fluent in English. Further, non-users had to
report using cannabis 10 or fewer times in their life and never in the past three months, while cannabis users had to report using
cannabis more than 10 times in their life and at least once in the past three months. One hundred and twenty-six participants were
excluded for not meeting these cannabis use criteria. A total of 309 participants met the criteria for being included as non-users, and
412 participants met the criteria for being included as cannabis users.

2.3. Participant characteristics

The final sample of 721 participants had completed an average of 1.94 years of university (SD = 1.06) and their average age was
20.21 (SD = 2.90). The sample was predominantly female (72.1%) and White (71.2%). Complete demographic characteristics
broken down by group appear in Table 1. As shown in the table, there were significantly more females in the non-users group and
significantly more White participants in the users group. As such these will be entered in as covariates in subsequent analyses.
A total of 72.5% of the non-users had never used cannabis, while the remainder had used it 10 or fewer times in their life, and
never in the past three months. A total of 90% of the cannabis users reported use in the last month. On average, cannabis users
reported using cannabis 10.13 days in the past month (SD = 9.75) and 2.34 times in the past week (SD = 2.31). Further they
reported use of cannabis for an average of 3.55 years (SD = 2.39).

2.4. Measures

2.4.1. Demographics
A short demographics questionnaire was used to assess age, sex, education, and ethnicity.

2.4.2. Openness to experience

The Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience Five Factor Inventory, (NEO-FFI; McCrae & Costa, 2010) was used to
measure the Big 5 personality domains (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness). Par-
ticipants rated how much they endorsed various items which measured these traits (e.g. “I often try new and foreign foods”) on a 5-
point scale with the following anchors: 0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = Neutral, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree. The NEO-
FFI has demonstrated sound reliability and validity, with validity coefficients ranging from 0.86 to 0.92, and test-retest reliability
coefficients ranging from 0.66 to 0.92 across the five subscales (McCrae & Costa, 2010).

2.4.3. Cannabis consumption

The Daily Sessions, Frequency, Age of Onset, and Quantity of Cannabis Use Inventory (Cuttler & Spradlin, 2017) was administered
to assess cannabis use patterns and determine eligibility. The psychometric properties of this inventory have been previously es-
tablished; specifically, the various subscales of this inventory have been shown to demonstrate good reliability, as well as predictive,
concurrent, and discriminant validity (Cuttler & Spradlin, 2017).

2.4.4. Subjective creativity

Self-reported creativity was assessed using the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Survey (K-DOCS; Kaufman, 2012), which measures
individuals’ beliefs about their level of creativity in different domains (e.g., artistic, mathematical, musical, literary). Participants
rated their perceived level of creativity compared to people of approximately their age and life experience on a 5-point scale with the
following anchors: 1 = Much Less Creative, 2 = Less Creative, 3 = Neither More nor Less Creative, 4 = More Creative, 5 = Much
More Creative. The K-DOCS has demonstrated good test-retest reliability, with alpha coefficients ranging from 0.83 to 0.87 across the
various subscales (Kaufman, 2012).
Self-reported creative achievements/behaviors were assessed using the Creative Behaviors Inventory (CBI; Hocevar, 1980) which

70
E.M. LaFrance, C. Cuttler Consciousness and Cognition 56 (2017) 68–76

measures creative achievements and behaviors in various domains (e.g., creating art, publishing a paper, book, or poem, writing
music). Participants rated the number of times that they had completed various creative behaviors on a 6-point scale with the
following anchors: 0 = Never, 1 = Once, 2 = Twice, 3 = 3–4 times, 4 = 5–6 times, 5 = Over 6 times. The CBI has demonstrated
excellent reliability (α = 0.92; Silva, Wigert, Reiter-Palmon, & Kaufman, 2012).

2.4.5. Objective creativity

Creativity was also measured objectively using two separate tests. Divergent thinking ability was measured using the Alternate
Uses Test, modified from the Uses of Objects Test (Getzels & Jackson, 1962). In this test, participants had one minute to generate as
many uses as possible for common objects. Participants completed three one-minute trials with three different objects (newspaper,
paper clip, blanket). Responses were scored based on number of responses (fluency), number of unique categories of response type
(flexibility), number of typical responses (typical), and number of creative responses (atypical). The Alternate Uses Task has de-
monstrated convergent validity, with an alpha coefficient of approximately 0.53 (Hocevar & Michael, 1979). In the present sample,
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82.
Convergent thinking ability was assessed using 20 items from the Remote Associates Test (Mednick & Mednick, 1967). Each item
on this test consists of three unrelated stimulus words, which are associated with a solution word. The solution word participants
generate must combine with the three stimulus words to make three common compound words or phrases. For example, the three
stimulus words “cottage,” “Swiss,” and “cake” would be presented and participants would need to generate the word “cheese,” which
combines with these stimulus words to form “cottage cheese,” “Swiss cheese,” and “cheesecake.” Participants were given 30 s to
generate each solution word. Items were selected from a database of 144 remote associate problems which had been rated on average
percentage of participants solving, and average time-to-solution (Bowden & Jung-Beeman, 2003). Items were selected based on
difficulty, such that 25% of items selected were easy (i.e., had a low solution time and high percentage of participants solving), 50%
were moderate (i.e., had a medium solution time and moderate percentage of participants solving), and 25% were difficult (i.e., had a
high solution time and low percentage of participants solving). The Remote Associates Test has demonstrated good external validity,
as well as internal reliability, with an alpha coefficient of 0.82 (Lee, Huggins, & Therriault, 2014).

2.5. Procedures

The Office of Research Assurances at Washington State University deemed this project exempt from the need for review by the
Institutional Review Board. The study was administered online using Qualtrics survey software. Participants first provided informed
consent and then completed the measures described above. The study took approximately 60 min and participants were compensated
with course credit.

2.6. Data analysis

The data were screened for univariate outliers, defined as scores falling more than 3.29 standard deviations (SDs) from the sample
mean. The small number detected (< 1%) were converted to a score equivalent to 3.29 SDs from the mean (Tabachnick,
Fidell, & Osterlind, 2001). IBM SPSS (version 24) was used to conduct all analyses, with case-wise deletion used for missing data.
Mixed factorial analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to compare cannabis users’ and non-users’ self-reported creativity
subscale scores on the K-DOCS and CBI. Significant interactions were followed-up with independent-samples t-tests to compare
cannabis users and non-users on each of the various subscales. Further, independent-samples t-tests were performed to compare
cannabis users’ and non-users’ objective creativity test performance (Alternate Uses Test, Remote Associates Test) as well as their
personality traits. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were subsequently conducted to compare self-reported and objective creativity
across users and non-users, while controlling for demographic and personality confounds.

3. Results

3.1. Cannabis users’ and non-users’ self-reported creativity

As shown in Fig. 1, results of a mixed factorial ANOVA revealed a small but significant effect of cannabis use status on K-DOCS
scores, F(1, 719) = 6.77, p = .001, ηp2 = 0.01, as well as a significant interaction between cannabis use status and the five K-DOCS
subscales, F(4, 2876) = 3.13, p = .01, ηp2 = 0.004. Follow-up independent samples t-tests revealed that cannabis users reported
significantly higher levels of performance, t(719) = −3.19, p < .001, d = 0.24, and artistic creativity, t(719) = −2.56, p = .01,
d = 0.19.
A separate mixed factorial ANOVA revealed no significant effect of cannabis use status on CBI scores, F(1, 719) = 0.21, p = .65,
ηp2 = 0.000, and no significant interaction between cannabis use status and CBI subscale scores, F(5, 3595) = 1.55, p = .17,
ηp2 = 0.002. Therefore, CBI scores are not considered in subsequent analyses.

3.2. Cannabis users’ and non-users’ objective creativity test performance

Cannabis users did not differ significantly from non-users on any of the outcomes measured by the Alternate Uses Test of di-
vergent thinking. More specifically the two groups did not differ in their scores on atypical uses for objects (i.e., creative uses), t(719)

71
E.M. LaFrance, C. Cuttler Consciousness and Cognition 56 (2017) 68–76

45 Non-Users Cannabis Users

40

Mean Creativity Scores

35 ** *
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Self/Everyday Scholarly Performance Mech/Scientific Artistic
* **
Fig. 1. Cannabis users’ vs. non-users’ self-reported creativity on the K-DOCS. Note: denotes p < .05, denotes p < .01.

= −0.94, p = .36, d = 0.07, fluency, t(719) = −0.66, p = .51, d = 0.05, flexibility, t(719) = −1.41, p = .16, d = 0.11, or typical
uses of objects, t(719) = −0.15, p = .88, d = 0.01. Since the Alternate Uses Test was unrelated to cannabis use status it is not further
considered. However, as depicted in Fig. 2, results of an independent-samples t-test indicated that cannabis users outperformed non-
users on the Remote Associates Test of convergent thinking, t(719) = −2.40, p = .02, d = 0.18.

3.3. Personality differences in cannabis users vs. non-users

An independent-samples t-test revealed that cannabis users were significantly more extraverted (M = 30.13, SD = 5.58) than
non-users (M = 29.24, SD = 6.29), t(719) = −2.01, p = .045, d = 0.15. Cannabis users were also found to be significantly higher in
openness to experience (M = 23.82, SD = 4.68) compared to non-users (M = 22.00, SD = 4.10), t(719) = −5.45, p < .001,
d = 0.41. Finally, cannabis users were significantly lower in conscientiousness (M = 28.00, SD = 5.62) than non-users (M = 29.73,
SD = 5.87), t(719) = 4.04, p < .001, d = 0.30. The differences in cannabis users’ and non-users’ neuroticism and agreeableness
scores were not statistically significant and therefore these personality traits are not considered in the following ANCOVAs.

3.4. ANCOVAs controlling for demographic and personality confounds

To determine whether cannabis users’ increased levels of creativity are a function of their differences in demographic char-
acteristics or personality, we conducted a series of follow-up ANCOVAs controlling for gender and ethnicity, extraversion, openness
to experience, and conscientiousness. As depicted in Table 2, the results showed that the effects of cannabis use status on K-DOCS
scores and Remote Associates Test scores remained statistically significant when controlling for differences in demographic char-
acteristics, as well as when controlling for differences in extraversion and conscientiousness. In contrast, the effects of cannabis use
status on both K-DOCS scores and Remote Associates Test performance were abolished by controlling for openness to experience.

4. Discussion

Previous studies have generally found that low doses of THC may enhance divergent thinking (Curran et al., 2002; Jones et al.,
2009; Kowal et al., 2015; Schafer et al., 2012; Weckowicz et al., 1975), but impair convergent thinking (Schafer et al., 2012;
Weckowicz et al., 1975), although these results have not always been consistent (Bourassa & Vaugeois, 2001; Kowal et al., 2015;
Tinklenberg et al., 1978). Additionally, sober cannabis users have been found to demonstrate enhanced divergent thinking (Jones
et al., 2009) and to report higher levels of creativity (Eisenman et al., 1980; Todd & Goldstein, 1977; Victor et al., 1973). However, to
our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate whether personality differences might account for these effects.

8 *
Number of Correct Solutions

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Non-Users Cannabis Users
*
Fig. 2. Cannabis users’ vs. non-users’ performance on the remote associates test. Note: denotes p < .05.

72
E.M. LaFrance, C. Cuttler Consciousness and Cognition 56 (2017) 68–76

Table 2
ANCOVAS comparing cannabis users to non-users while controlling for confounds.

Covariates K-DOCS (self-report) Remote associates test (objective)

None
Main effect F(1, 719) = 6.77, p = .001, ηp2 = 0.01 t(719) = −2.40, p = .02, d = 0.18
Interaction F(4, 2876) = 3.13, p = .01, ηp2 = 0.004a

Sex & ethnicity

Main effect F(1, 715) = 5.15, p = .02, ηp2 = 0.007 F(1, 715) = 3.90, p = .049, ηp2 = 0.005
Interaction F(4, 2860) = 4.03, p = .003, ηp2 = 0.006a

Extraversion
Main effect F(1, 718) = 5.02, p = .03, ηp2 = 0.007 F(1, 718) = 6.62, p = .01, ηp2 = 0.009
Interaction F(4, 2872) = 3.22, p = .01, ηp2 = 0.004a

Openness
Main effect F(1, 718) = 0.60, p = .44, ηp2 = 0.001 F(1, 718) = 1.65, p = .20, ηp2 = 0.002
Interaction F(4, 2872) = 1.83, p = .12, ηp2 = 0.003

Conscientiousness
Main effect F(1, 718) = 9.55, p = .002, ηp2 = 0.013 F(1, 718) = 4.69, p = .03, ηp2 = 0.006
Interaction F(4, 2872) = 1.81, p = .12, ηp2 = 0.003

a
In all cases, follow-up tests on these interactions showed that cannabis users reported higher levels of creativity than non-users on the artistic and
performance subscales of the K-DOCS.

Results of this study replicated those of Eisenman et al. (1980), Todd and Goldstein (1977), and Victor et al. (1973), by showing
that sober cannabis users self-report higher levels of creativity than non-users. However, this effect was only detected on one of the
two self-report measures of creativity. Specifically, cannabis users reported higher levels of creativity on the performance and artistic
subscales of the K-DOCS which measures how creative one believes s/he is relative to the average person. In contrast, cannabis users
showed no differences from non-users on the CBI, which measures the number of creative works or achievements the individual has
produced. These discrepant findings may indicate that cannabis users falsely believe they are more creative than the average person.
However, cannabis users are known to demonstrate memory impairments (Miller, McFarland, Cornett, & Brightwell, 1977; Schwartz,
Gruenewald, Klitzner, & Fedio, 1989), and as such this pattern of results could alternatively indicate that cannabis users have a harder
time remembering their creative achievements and works. Further, producing a higher volume of creative works does not necessarily
indicate that the work is actually more creative. Another problem with relying on self-report measures of creativity, is that although
they were sober at the time of completing the inventory, cannabis users may still consider instances of creativity while intoxicated
when assessing their overall levels of creativity.
Nevertheless, cannabis users’ higher self-reported creativity on the K-DOCS was confirmed by their objective performance on the
Remote Associates Test of convergent thinking. The finding that sober cannabis users show enhanced convergent, but not divergent
thinking, contradicted our initial hypothesis that cannabis users would demonstrate enhanced divergent, but not convergent,
thinking. This outcome was both surprising and discrepant with some previous research suggesting that sober cannabis users perform
better than non-users on a test of divergent thinking (Jones et al., 2009). It is also somewhat discrepant with previous findings that
acute cannabis intoxication may impair convergent thinking but enhance divergent thinking (Schafer et al., 2012; Weckowicz et al.,
1975, 1977). Nevertheless, these effects have been somewhat inconsistent in the literature, with some studies failing to find effects of
acute cannabis intoxication on divergent thinking (Bourassa & Vaugeois, 2001; Tinklenberg et al., 1978). Regardless, future research
is needed to replicate the findings of the present study.
Once again, cannabis users are known to differ from non-users in numerous ways that may account for their differences in
creativity. The results of this study showed that relative to non-users, cannabis users were significantly higher in extraversion and
openness to experience, and that they were significantly lower in conscientiousness, with the most pronounced difference between
cannabis users and non-users being on openness to experience. Each of these personality domains has been shown to predict higher
levels of creativity, with openness to experience demonstrating the most robust effects (Feist, 1998; Guastello, 2008; Kaufman, 2013;
Singh & Kaushik, 2015; Sung & Choi, 2009).
To examine whether these differences in personality are driving the effects we detected, we conducted a series of ANCOVAs
controlling for these personality domains. The results showed that controlling for extraversion and conscientiousness had little, to no,
impact on the results. Thus, differences in cannabis users’ and non-users’ creativity cannot be attributed to these personality domains.
However, removing the variance associated with openness to experience nullified the differences in cannabis users’ and non-users’
self-reported and objective creativity. These results indicate that cannabis users’ higher levels of openness to experience are re-
sponsible for their enhanced self-reported creativity and convergent thinking test performance.
The cross-sectional design used in the present study prohibits the ability to arrive at definitive conclusions about the causal
nature, and direction, of the relationships detected between personality, cannabis use, and creativity. However, given that personality
is established early in life (Deal, Halverson, Havill, & Martin, 2005), these results indicate that pre-existing differences in openness to
experience may be increasing both creativity and the propensity to use cannabis, rather than cannabis directly affecting creativity. Of
course, there are likely other mechanisms, aside from openness to experience, at play in the relationship between cannabis use and
creativity. While we found no evidence that demographic characteristics are responsible for the differences in cannabis users’ and

73
E.M. LaFrance, C. Cuttler Consciousness and Cognition 56 (2017) 68–76

non-users’ creativity, there are a myriad of other potential differences between these two groups (e.g., use of other substances,
impulsivity, memory, IQ) that may contribute to cannabis users’ elevated creativity scores.
Given our finding that openness to experience underlies sober cannabis users’ enhanced creativity, future research examining
creativity under conditions of acute intoxication may consider examining openness to experience (and other personality domains) as
moderators of the effects of acute cannabis intoxication on creativity. It is possible that the acute effects of cannabis on creativity
would vary as a function of one’s level of openness to experience. Previous research has shown that the effects of acute cannabis
administration on divergent thinking were strongest in those who were low in creative ability and that the detrimental effects of
cannabis on convergent thinking were largest in those high in creative ability (Schafer et al., 2012). Given that openness to ex-
perience is related to higher creativity, one might expect to see stronger effects of acute cannabis intoxication on divergent thinking
in individuals who are low in openness to experience.
Alternatively, the effects of acute cannabis intoxication on creativity may be attributed to the expectation that cannabis in-
toxication will enhance creativity. In support of this conjecture, Bourassa and Vaugeois (2001) found that a placebo group (who
received sham-THC in the form of edible biscuits) performed significantly better on a divergent thinking task than a group receiving
actual THC-laden biscuits. Similarly, Hicks, Pedersen, Friedman, and McCarthy (2011) found that briefly exposing sober participants
to cannabis-related stimuli (40 ms) enhanced convergent thinking test performance in participants who expected that cannabis in-
toxication would enhance their creativity. These findings indicate that merely expecting to feel more creative when high may account
for some of the beneficial effects of acute cannabis intoxication on creativity. This expectancy effect has also been demonstrated with
alcohol (Lapp, Collins, & Izzo, 1994), and suggests that the common belief that certain psychoactive substances enhance creativity
may, in some cases, be sufficient to improve creativity test performance.
The use of a university student sample is a primary limitation of this study which restricts the ability to generalize the findings to
broader populations. However, this population was intentionally sought because cannabis use is most frequent among young adults
(SAMHSA, 2016), and the sample was readily accessible, allowing us to collect sufficient data to power analyses to detect small sized
effects. Another notable limitation is the over-representation of white participants, and the gender imbalance within our sample. Most
studies on the acute effects of cannabis on creativity have had gender-imbalanced samples favoring males to females
(Bourassa & Vaugeois, 2001; Jones et al., 2009; Kowal et al., 2015; Weckowicz et al., 1975). Our sample, on the other hand, was
predominantly female. While this is beneficial in demonstrating that the relationship between cannabis use and creativity persists in a
female sample, future research should attempt to replicate the findings of this study with a more ethnically diverse and gender
balanced sample.
The use of self-report measures of creativity and drug-use is an additional limitation of the present study. This problem is most
pronounced for results pertaining to the K-DOCS, which measures perceived level of creativity in different domains, and may be
subject to reporting bias. In contrast, the CBI measures number of creative achievements, which represents a more objective means of
measuring creative behaviors. We further attempted to offset limitations associated with the use of self-report measures by including
objective measures of creativity.

4.1. Conclusions

While mainstream media has propagated the idea that cannabis expands the mind and enhances creativity, our results show that
the link between cannabis and creativity is largely a spurious correlation driven by differences in personality (i.e., openness to
experience) that are related to both cannabis use and augmented creativity. While findings from acute administration studies support
the notion that acute cannabis intoxication, and/or expectancy effects, may lead to a temporary increase in divergent thinking, our
results indicate that these enhancements do not extend beyond the period of intoxication. Rather, both perceived and objective
differences in sober cannabis users’ and non-users’ creativity appear to be merely a function of cannabis users’ higher levels of
openness to experience.

Conflict of interest

None.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.
10.009.

References

Bourassa, M., & Vaugeois, P. (2001). Effects of marijuana use on divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 411–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S15326934CRJ1334_18.
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35,
634–639. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03195543.
Brothers, T. (2014). Louis Armstrong and “Gage”. Louis Armstrong, Master of modernism. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Broyd, S. J., van Hell, H. H., Beale, C., Yucel, M., & Solowij, N. (2016). Acute and chronic effects of cannabinoids on human cognition – A systematic review. Biological
Psychiatry, 79, 557–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.12.002.

74
E.M. LaFrance, C. Cuttler Consciousness and Cognition 56 (2017) 68–76

Chermahini, S. A., & Hommel, B. (2010). The (b)link between creativity and dopamine: Spontaneous eye blink rates predict and dissociate divergent and convergent
thinking. Cognition, 115, 458–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.007.
Curran, V. H., Brignell, C., Fletcher, S., Middleton, P., & Henry, J. (2002). Cognitive and subjective dose-response effects of acute oral delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) in infrequent cannabis users. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 164, 61–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-002-1169-0.
Cuttler, C., Mischley, L. K., & Sexton, M. (2016). Sex differences in cannabis use and effects: A cross-sectional survey of cannabis users. Cannabis and Cannabinoid
Research, 1, 166–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/can.2016.0010.
Cuttler, C., & Spradlin, A. (2017). Measuring cannabis use: Psychometric properties of the Daily Sessions, Frequency, Age of Onset, and Quantity of Cannabis Use
Inventory (DFAQ-CU). PLoS ONE, 12(5), e0178194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178194.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Baas, M., Wolsink, I., & Roskes, M. (2012). Working memory benefits creative insight, musical improvisation, and original ideation
through maintained task-focused attention. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 656–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211435795.
Deal, J. E., Halverson, C. F., Havill, V., & Martin, R. (2005). Temperament factors as longitudinal predictors of young adult personality. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51,
315–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2005.0015.
Eisenman, R., Grossman, J. C., & Goldstein, R. (1980). Undergraduate marijuana use as related to internal sensation novelty seeking and openness to experience.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 1013–1019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327957pspr0204_5.
Fridberg, D. J., Vollmer, J. M., O'Donnell, B. F., & Skosnik, P. F. (2011). Cannabis users differ from non-users on measures of personality and schizotypy. Psychiatry
Research, 186, 46–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.07.035.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. J. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Green, B., Kavanagh, D., & Young, R. (2003). Being stoned: A review of self-reported cannabis effects. Drug and Alcohol Review, 22(4), 453–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/09595230310001613976.
Guastello, S. J. (2008). Creativity and personality. In T. Rickards, M. A. Runco, & S. Moger (Eds.). The Routledge companion to creativity (pp. 267–278). London, UK:
Routledge.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 3–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x.
Hart, C. L., van Gorp, W., Haney, M., Foltin, R. W., & Fischman, M. W. (2001). Effects of acute smoked marijuana on complex cognitive performance.
Neuropsychopharmacology, 25, 757–765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00273-1.
Heisler, Y. (2012). Steve Jobs' LSD habit, why he indulged in marijuana, and his 1975 arrest. Retrieved from <http://www.networkworld.com/article/2222575/data-
center/data-center-steve-jobs-lsd-habit-why-he-indulged-in-marijuana-and-his-1975-arrest.html>.
Hicks, J. A., Pedersen, S. L., Friedman, R. S., & McCarthy, D. M. (2011). Expecting innovation: Psychoactive drug primes and the generation of creative solutions.
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 19, 314–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022954.
Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4, 25–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(80)90004-5.
Hocevar, D., & Michael, W. B. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 39, 917–921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316447903900427.
Hogan, R., Mankin, D., Conway, J., & Sherman, F. (1970). Personality correlates of undergraduate marijuana use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35(1, Pt
1), 58–63.
Holt, R. E., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Marijuana and creativity. In F. Allhoff, & D. Jacquett (Eds.). Cannabis philosophy for everyone: What were we just talking about? (pp.
114–120). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hommel, B. (2012). Convergent and divergent operations in cognitive search. In P. M. Todd, T. T. Hills, & T. W. Robbins (Eds.). Cognitive search: Evolution, algorithms,
and the brain (pp. 221–235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hooker, W. D., & Jones, R. T. (1987). Increased susceptibility to memory intrusions and Stroop interference effect during acute marijuana intoxication.
Psychopharmacology (Berl), 91, 20–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00690920.
Jones, K. A., Blagrove, M., & Parrott, A. C. (2009). Cannabis and ecstasy/MDMA: Empirical measures of creativity in recreational users. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs,
41, 323–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2009.10399769.
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6,
298–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029751.
Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Opening up openness: A four-factor model of openness to experience and creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 47, 233–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jocb.33.
Kay, E. D., Lyons, A., Newman, W., Mankin, D., & Loeb, R. C. (1978). A longitudinal study of personality correlates of marijuana use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 46(3), 470–477.
Kowal, M. A., Hazekamp, A., Colzato, L. S., van Steenbergen, H., van der Wee, N. J. A., Durieux, J., ... Hommel, B. (2015). Cannabis and creativity: Highly potent
cannabis impairs divergent thinking in regular cannabis users. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 232, 1123–1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-014-3749-1.
Lapp, W. M., Collins, R. L., & Izzo, C. V. (1994). On the enhancement of creativity by alcohol: Pharmacology or expectation? American Journal of Psychology, 107,
173–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1423036.
Lee, C. S., Huggins, A. C., & Therriault, D. J. (2014). A measure of creativity or intelligence? Examining internal and external structure validity evidence of the Remote
Associates Test. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 446–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036773.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal po-
pulations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2010). NEO inventories professional manual for the NEO personality inventory-3, NEO five-factor inventory-3, and NEO personality
inventory-revised. Lutz, FL: PAR.
Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. (1967). Examiner's manual, remote associates test. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Metrik, J., Kahler, C. W., Reynolds, B., McGeary, J. E., Monti, P. M., Haney, M., ... Rohsenow, D. J. (2012). Balanced placebo design with marijuana: Pharmacological
and expectancy effects on impulsivity and risk taking. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 223, 489–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2740-y.
Miller, L. L., McFarland, D., Cornett, T. L., & Brightwell, D. (1977). Marijuana and memory impairment: Effect on free recall and recognition memory. Pharmacology,
Biochemistry, and Behavior, 7, 99–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0091-3057(77)90191-5.
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories, themes, and issues. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sandberg, S. (2012). Is cannabis use normalized, celebrated, or neutralized? Analysing talk as action. Addiction Research & Theory, 20, 372–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3109/16066359.2011.638147.
Schafer, G., Feilding, A., Morgan, C. J. A., Agathangelou, M., Freeman, T. P., & Curran, H. V. (2012). Investigating the interaction between schizotypy, divergent
thinking, and cannabis use. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 292–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.11.009.
Schwartz, R. H., Gruenewald, P. J., Klitzner, M., & Fedio, P. (1989). Short-term memory impairment in cannabis-dependent adolescents. American Journal of Diseases of
Children, 143, 1214–1219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1989.02150220110030.
Silva, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 19–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024071.
Singh, T. K., & Kaushik, S. (2015). A study of creativity in relation to Big 5 personality traits. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(1), 124–128.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (2016). Marijuana (Cannabis). Retrieved from: <https://www.samhsa.gov/atod/
marijuana>.
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2009). Do Big Five personality factors affect individual creativity? The moderating role of extrinsic motivation. Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal, 37, 941–956. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.7.941.
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Osterlind, S. J. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
Terraciano, A., Lockenhoff, C. E., Crum, R. M., Bienvenu, O. J., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). Five Factor Model personality profiles of drug users. BMC Psychiatry, 8, 22.

75
E.M. LaFrance, C. Cuttler Consciousness and Cognition 56 (2017) 68–76

Tinklenberg, J. R., Darley, C. F., Roth, W. T., Pfefferbaum, A., & Kopell, B. S. (1978). Marijuana effects on associations to novel stimuli. Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disorders, 166(5), 362–364.
Todd, J., & Goldstein, R. (1977). Personality and attitudes of British marijuana users. Psychological Reports, 40(1), 990.
Victor, H. R., Grossman, J. C., & Eisenman, R. (1973). Openness to experience and marijuana use in high school students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
41(1), 78–85.
Weckowicz, T. E., Collier, G., & Spreng, L. (1977). Field dependence, cognitive functions, personality traits, and social values in heavy cannabis users and non-user
controls. Psychological Reports, 41, 192–302.
Weckowicz, T. E., Fedora, O., Mason, J., Radstaak, D., Bay, K. S., & Yonge, K. A. (1975). Effect of marijuana on divergent and convergent production cognitive tests.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84(4), 386–398.
Wenzel, J. (2015). Brian Wilson on weed legalization, what he thinks of his “Love & Mercy” biopic. Retrieved from < http://theknow.denverpost.com/2015/07/02/brian-
wilson-on-weed-legalization-what-he-thinks-of-his-love-mercy-biopic/105363/105363/ > .

76