Reinforcement supports the biological approach, by suggesting, that substance intake my excite ‘pleasure centres’ in the brain. Therefore resulting in the individual choosing to indulge in that behaviour again for hope of exciting those pleasure centres. Olds and Milner (1954) found that rats would press a lever for the reward of mild electrical stimulation in particular areas of the brain. Therefore pleasure is seen as very important for healthy development, so activities that are associated with achieving feeling of pleasure are commonly reinforced. Hence the pleasure that encourages essential behaviours like eating (pleasure being nice taste of food) is also the pleasure that may encourage damaging behaviour through substance abuse. One can therefore conclude that perhaps substance abuse and so addiction is the price one pays to obtain pleasurable stimulation. This correlates with the idea of Cost-benefit analysis as proposed by Rosen stock and Becker 1984 in the health belief model. Substance abusers may not change their substance abusing habits i.e. smoking because the feeling of pleasure achieved from this activity is greater than the perceived health benefits from prevention. Hence the perceived benefits of quitting the smoking habit fails to exceed the perceived barriers, and so substance abuse continues.
Other Psychologists have been known to justify Substance abuse by Peer Pressure. Lucas and Lloyd 1995, using 11-14 year olds investigated the relationship between smokers and non-smokers. His investigation was carried out on two groups of all smokers and all non-smokers. The children filled out questionnaires and many admitted to smoking due to Peer pressures, it was also observed that Non smokers were not tolerated in the smokers group and Non Smokers referred to smokers as a “contagious disease”. This shows obvious ingroup/outgroup categorisation, in that disparaging behaviours of the smokers the non-smokers are able to boost their own esteem. It was also that the girls who were members of the smokers group were found to be more attractive to boys. This suggests the cigarette being associated with attracting others and hence a reward. Making the behaviour more likely to reoccur. Part of the Social learning theory by Bandura states children are more likely to imitate behaviours which appear to achieve some form of positive reinforcement and so the child may continue smoking regardless of harm it may be inducing, because of the rewards she is receiving.
Evaluate psychological explanations of Substance abuse.
Explaining substance abuse by neurotransmitters and Genetics is very scientific and strong correlation have been proven, it also provides counter arguments for nature- nurture debate. The practical application from physiological explanations can prove to be very efficient, i.e. use of Nicotine patches, regulating amount of nicotine ‘needed’ by body.
The work By Lucas and Lloyd on 11-14 year olds is not generalisable as the sample population were between 11 and 14 years of age and so frame of mind will be very different. This assumption of peer pressure rests largely on self reports of smokers who may be reluctant to concede that their use was motivated by other perhaps abnormal sources and so produce more socially acceptable ones, e.g. Peer pressure. This induction of possible demand characteristics ultimately makes the research unreliable. However upon considering a Means – End analysis, this piece of research has proven to be a useful insight as to why children take up smoking and allows psychologists to develop a more specific way of combating the issue. Ethologists argue with the social learning theory, as it appears that it ignores innate built in biases in learning due to evolution making it more deterministic in defining and explaining substance abuse.
The physiological approach in explaining substance abuse is reductionism, explaining substance abuse through solely the actions of neurones or genetics, this may result in ignoring other suitable levels of explanation and the interaction of causal factors. The bio psychosocial theories often over simplify the huge complexity of physical systems and their interaction with environmental factors. E.g. the neurochemical explanations of substance abuse may neglect the social context of the behaviours. The pleasures and escapes associated with taking a drug are varied. There are many environmental factors affecting addictive behaviours in society Townsend in 1993 found upon examining the patter of cigarette consumption with the retail price of cigarettes in the UK indicated the curve for consumption was the mirror image of the curve for retail price. From 1970 a decrease in retail price corresponded with a decrease in cigarette consumption this shows the contribution of other factors in explaining substance abuse other than just physiological. E.g. the development of a smoking addiction may be result of social influences, rather than for pleasure from the physiological processes the cigarette may induce.
The use of the Cost-benefit analysis from the health belief model, from the cognitive approach, view people as all being rational thought processors, and so do not take into account irrational or impulsive thoughts from the individual. An example of a non-rational explanation is through Weinstein 1987, who proposed the theory of unrealistic optimism in which people believe themselves to be less likely to suffer from damaging behaviours than others. This was illustrated by Turner in 1988, where Oxford University students where asked to judge their own risk of contracting aids, the students indicated that they perceived their risks as less than their fellow students. Even those who were taking part in high-risk activities, such as unprotected sex with prostitutes or bisexuals. This study proves human do not always think logically, and the cognitive approach as shown in the health belief model is overly simplistic compared to the processes shown in computer functioning. Substance abusers may be unrealistically optimistic and so the perceived benefits are far less potent. Another flaw in the health belief mode is that there is also no standard measure of perceived susceptibility and so assumptions are subjective and therefore open to experimenter bias, weakening results considerably. Smedslund 2000 argues the assumptions proposed are true by definition but cannot be tested, how can one test the measure of perceived susceptibility, this questions the validity of the results over all. However in contrast to the biological approach, the cognitive approach is able to explain substance abuse without resorting to reductionism, but on amore psychological, functional level. This is shown in the health belief model by taking into account the effect of social pressures and personality as well as the perceived susceptibility of the individual and therefore adopting amore holistic approach.
David and Neal’s diagnosis of 1994 of substance abuse appears deterministic in the composition of the criteria required to constitute substance abuse. E.g it states that persistent and pathological abuse and at least one of the following: - Failure to fulfil important obligation/putting oneself or others at physical risk/ having legal difficulties/serious social or interpersonal problems, result in substance abuse, The second criterion stated can quite easily assume the fundamental attribution error, where an individuals behaviour is regarded as result of disposition rather than situational. Therefore determining behaviours on personality rather than on outside influences. For example, failure to fulfil important obligations may be result of external influences the individual was not in control of, i.e. Looking after a child, may be regarded as an important obligation failure to do so maybe result of traffic jams. Where the failure is result of external influences rather than irresponsibility associated with substance abuse. This makes the measures open to subjective judgement and so experimenter bias weakening validity of results.
An Island of people who have never seen a cigarette suggests one technique to help prevent use.
The Health belief model states that The perceived susceptibility and individual may feel is result of the amount of knowledge they have on the possible illnesses/diseases they make experience, in this context as result of smoking. Therefore produce maximal perceived susceptibility in our audience we shall provide them with a clear concise, yet detailed message about the harmful effects of smoking. If they feel more susceptible they are likely to evaluate the threat with greater fear and the perceived benefits of not smoking will exceed the barriers of doing so.
According to the Yale Model of communication in order to produce an effective message the source conveying the message must be credible. Therefore in order to prevent the insular people from taking up smoking, the individual conveying the message should show experience of a smoking history and be able to discuss in depth the negativities associated with such a habit. This may produce a fear within the audience and so make them less likely to take up smoking for fear of suffering the unfortunate consequences as discussed by our presenter.
The most effective medium I feel is one to one communication as the reality of the situation produces far more impact on the individual and a more personal relationship can be assumed by the physical closeness achieved. The message should be absent of technicalities but simple, short clear and precise for according to the Yale Model the audience are far more likely to remember if information conveyed is short but with impact. Also again according to the Yale model the effects of persuasive communication tend to wear off over time, however the negative effects of smoking are apparently better remembered when audience participate therefore concluding with a group discussion may provide to be a very useful exercise.
However we must take into account this issue of Social control, and hence although we are trying to prevent the islanders from taking up smoking, one should explain why people take up the habit and the positive reinforcement they achieve from doing so, but simultaneously be able to enhance the negativities associated with the activity. The people should be able to make the decision for themselves without social manipulation from the source from which they are learning.
