Cited by 52Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchSchizophrenia research and treatmentPersonality Traits and Psychology

Personality may explain the association between cannabis use and neuropsychological impairment

Open access
Daly, Michael·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

In a recent issue of PNAS, Meier et al. (1) used a prospective cohort of 1,037 New Zealanders followed from birth to age 38 y to show that the relationship between cannabis use and cognitive impairment cannot be attributed to precannabis-use differences in intelligence. However, important omitted “third” variables, such as stable individual differences in personality traits, could potentially cause both drug use and changes in intelligence. For instance, a negative relationship between cannabis use and neuropsychological performance may be explained by low conscientiousness, which could lead to substance dependence (2) and poor performance on neuropsychological tests (2, 3). Personality traits could also explain positive noncausal associations between cannabis use and cognitive functioning. For example, high levels of openness to experience could lead people to seek out activities that promote cognitive functioning and could also condition the initiation of cannabis use (4). It is, therefore, critical to consider whether personality traits may confound the cannabis–intelligence link.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1218571110

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daly, M.
Affiliations
University of Stirling (GB)
Corresponding author
Daly, Michael
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-03-04
Volume
110
Issue
11
Pages
E979-E979
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2035074318
Cited by
52
References
6
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
cannabis use, personality, neuropsychological deficits, cognitive function, personality traits
MeSH terms
Humans, Marijuana Smoking, Mental Processes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review