Discrimination and Cannabis Use through Material Hardship: The Moderating Roles of Social Resources and Early System Involvement

Background and Purpose: Discrimination is a well-documented driver of substance use, yet the economic and social mechanisms underlying this link remain under-explored. This study examines whether material hardship mediates the relationship between discrimination and cannabis use among young adults. Furthermore, the study investigates the moderating roles of social support (receiving help) and social capital (providing help), while testing if early involvement in child welfare or juvenile justice systems conditions these protective effects.

Methods: This study utilized Wave 7 from the Future of Families & Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS) with 2,730 young adults (M = 22.29, SD = 0.55, Range: 21–26 years) as the final sample. The analytic framework included the following measurements: discrimination (IV), material hardship (mediator), and cannabis use (outcome), with social capital (e.g., help with child care or elder care), social support (e.g., paying bills), and early system involvement as moderators. Two separate models were developed to distinguish the effects of social capital and social support, respectively. The first moderated mediation analysis (Model 15 in Process Macro) involved one moderator (social capital/social support) and system involvement was added as a covariate, while the second analysis (Model 18) was conducted using two moderators (social capital/social support, system involvement). All statistical analyses were completed using SPSS 30.0 and Process Macro 5.0.

Results: For social capital, the first moderated mediation analysis revealed that discrimination (b = 0.08, p<.05), material hardship (b = 0.18, p<.001), and early system involvement (b = 0.66, p<.001) were significantly associated with the increased risk of cannabis use among young adults. Social capital significantly moderated the relationship between material hardship and cannabis use (b = -0.03, p<.05), but not the relationship between discrimination and cannabis use. In other words, the positive relationship between material hardship and cannabis use weakens as the social capital increases (buffering role). For social support, the results were consistent with the social capital model, although no significant interaction terms were identified. In Model 18 with social capital, both discrimination (b = 0.09, p<.001) and material hardship (b = 0.18, p<.001) remained positively associated with cannabis use. Only the interaction between social capital and system involvement on cannabis use was significant (b = -0.15, p<.05), indicating that the direct protective effect of social capital on cannabis use is significantly weakened for individuals with a history of system involvement. For social support, the results remained consistent except there being no significant interaction terms. Material hardship showed a significant mediating effect across all models.

Conclusions and Implications: Overall, material hardship appears to be a significant mediator linking the pathway between discrimination and cannabis use. Social capital, but not social support, buffered the association between material hardship and cannabis use. However, this protective role was significantly attenuated for young adults with a history of system involvement, suggesting that institutional contact may erode the efficacy of social resources. These findings highlight the importance of addressing material hardship while fostering reciprocal community engagement, particularly for young adults affected by child welfare or juvenile justice systems.