Computerized Intervention for Distress Intolerance

Экспериментальный: Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention

Two, 1-hour computerized sessions that include psychoeducation about emotional avoidance, idiographic emotional exposure, and construction of idiographic implementation intentions to practice distress tolerance skills outside of session.

Поведенческий: Computerized Distress Intolerance Intervention

Плацебо Компаратор: Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention

Two, 1-hour computerized sessions that focus on psychoeducation about the importance of a healthy lifestyle.

Поведенческий: Computerized Healthy Behaviors Intervention

Change in Distress Intolerance Index (DII) score from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up

Self-report measure of Distress Intolerance (Distress Intolerance Index [DII]; McHugh & Otto, 2012). The DII is a self-report measure comprised of 10 items that are summed together to form a total score (minimum: 0; maximum: 40). Higher scores indicate greater distress intolerance (i.e., worse outcome).

Change in Mirror-Tracing Persistence Task (MTPT) quit latency from Baseline to Post-Treatment

Behavioral measure of Distress Intolerance (Mirror-Tracing Persistence Task [MTPT]; Macatee & Cougle, 2015). The MTPT is a behavioral persistence measure that assesses behavioral distress intolerance via the latency to quit a distressing task. Scores range from 0 seconds to a maximum persistence time of 7 minutes. Lower scores indicate greater distress intolerance (i.e., worse outcome).

Change in Marijuana Problems Scale (MPS) score from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up

Self-report measure of marijuana use-related problems (Marijuana Problems Scale [MPS]; Stephens et al., 2000). The MPS is a self-report measure of marijuana use-related problem severity in the past month. The measure is comprised of 19 items with a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 38. Higher scores indicate greater marijuana use-related problem severity in the past month (i.e., worse outcome).

Change in Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) diagnostic criteria from Baseline to 4-Month Follow-Up

Interviewer-assessed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5 Cannabis Use Disorder diagnostic criteria. DSM-5 Cannabis Use Disorder criteria were assessed via interview at baseline and again at the 4-month follow-up. Total number of Cannabis Use Disorder criteria was used to assess Cannabis Use Disorder severity (minimum score: 0; maximum score: 11). Higher scores indicate greater Cannabis Use Disorder severity (i.e., worse outcome).

Change in Timeline follow-back (TLFB) cannabis use frequency from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up

Percent cannabis use days in the past month (Timeline follow-back [TLFB]; Hjorthoj et al., 2012). The Timeline follow-back (TLFB) is a self-report measure that assesses cannabis use over the past 4 weeks. Percentage of days on which cannabis was used in the past four weeks was used to assess cannabis use frequency (minimum: 0%; maximum: 100%). Higher scores indicate greater cannabis use frequency (i.e., worse outcome).

Change in Marijuana Motives Measure (MMM) score from Baseline through 4-Month Follow-Up

Self-reported motives for cannabis use (Marijuana Motives Measure [MMM]; Zvolensky et al., 2007). The Marijuana Motives Measure (MMM) is a self-report measure that assesses different motives for marijuana use. The coping motives subscale was the subscale of interest in this project. The Coping motives subscale is comprised of 4 items that are then averaged (minimum score: 1; maximum score: 5). Greater scores indicate greater coping motives for marijuana use (i.e., worse outcome).

Change in Marijuana Craving Questionnaire (MCQ) score from Baseline to Post-Treatment

Self-reported state craving for marijuana (Marijuana Craving Questionnaire [MCQ]; Heishman et al., 2009). The Marijuana Craving Questionnaire (MCQ) is a self-report measure of current craving for marijuana use. The emotionality subscale was the subscale of interest in this project. The Emotionality subscale is comprised of 5 items that are then averaged (minimum score: 1; maximum score: 7). Greater scores indicate greater marijuana craving (i.e., worse outcome). In this project, the outcome of interest is the extent to which a laboratory stress induction increases state marijuana craving.

Change in electroencephalography (EEG) index of acute stress modulation of cannabis cue reactivity (assessed by the Late Positive Potential [LPP]) from Baseline to Post-Treatment

Acute Stress modulation of the Late Positive Potential (LPP) to Cannabis Cues. The LPP to visual cannabis cues before and after a laboratory stress induction will be measured as a neurophysiological index of acute stress modulation of cannabis cue incentive salience. Greater values indicate a larger neural response to cannabis cues during acute stress (i.e., worse outcome).

Change in electroencephalography (EEG) index of acute stress modulation of threat reactivity (assessed by the Late Positive Potential [LPP]) from Baseline to Post-Treatment

Acute Stress modulation of the Late Positive Potential (LPP) to threat stimuli. The LPP to visual threat stimuli before and after a laboratory stress induction will be measured as a neurophysiological index of acute stress modulation of threat reactivity. Greater values indicate a larger neural response to threat during acute stress (i.e., worse outcome).

Change in electroencephalography (EEG) index of acute stress modulation of response inhibition (assessed by the N200 [N2]) from Baseline to Post-Treatment

Acute stress modulation of the N2 to no-go stimuli. The N2 to no-go vs. go stimuli on a go/no-go task before and after a laboratory stress induction will be measured as a neurophysiological index of the acute stress modulation of response inhibition. More negative values indicate a larger neural response to stimuli requiring response inhibition during acute stress (i.e., better outcome).