MODELS OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR
To read up on models of addictive behaviour, refer to pages 609–618 of Eysenck’s A2 Level Psychology.
Ask yourself * Is there a biological basis to addictive behaviour? * Can somebody learn to be an addict? * How might explanations of addiction differ for different addictions?
What you need to know MODELS OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR | EXPLANATIONS OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR | * Biological, behavioural (learning), and cognitive models of addictive behaviour | * Biological, behavioural (learning), and cognitive explanations for initiation, maintenance, and relapse * Specific explanations of particular addictions including smoking and gambling |
MODELS OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR
The models of addictive behaviour attempt to explain the causes and thereby offer insights into how an addiction develops. The assumptions as to the causes of addiction also affect the approach taken to treatment.
Biological model of addictive behaviour
According to this model, the main causes of addictive behaviour are biological factors within the individual, for example, a neurochemical imbalance or a genetic predisposition towards addictive behaviour. Thus, the vulnerability to develop an addiction may be inherited and family studies are used to support this explanation. Thus approach assumes that addiction has physical causes and can therefore only be cured through medicine.
Behavioural (learning) model of addictive behaviour
This model is based on the principles of learning and the assumption that all behaviour is learned through association (classical conditioning), reinforcement (operant conditioning), or social learning (social learning theory) from environmental experience. Thus, addiction is the learning of maladaptive and dysfunctional behaviour.
Cognitive model of addictive behaviour
This model suggests cognitive dysfunction underpins addiction. The individual is an information processor and it is a breakdown in cognitive processing that causes the addiction. Irrational, obsessive, and faulty thinking can affect emotion and behaviour. Thus, according to this model, faulty thinking and errors in decision making are considered to be the causes of addiction.
EXPLANATIONS OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOURS
Biological explanations of addictive behaviour
The biological explanation can explain chemical addictions such as nicotine more easily than addictions such as gambling. Biological explanations of addiction focus on neurotransmitters in the brain, and on genetic differences between people with addictions and people without addictions.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS * The neurotransmitter dopamine and other brain biochemicals have been linked to addictions, both chemical addition (drug addiction) and behaviours such as gambling and videogame playing (Potenza, 2001, see A2 Level Psychology page 611). High levels of dopamine are experienced as rewarding, which is why the addiction is initially enjoyed and maintained. See the bullet point below on reinforcement. * Some family studies suggest a link between addictive behaviour and personality traits. For example, a study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins found a connection between genetics and the characteristics of anti-social personality (including attention seeking, not following social norms, and violence) and between these personality characteristics and alcoholism (Jang, Vernon, & Livesley, 2000, see A2 Level Psychology page 612). Similar findings have also been found for behavioural addictions such as gambling addiction (Comings et al., 1996, see A2 Level Psychology page 612). * Genetics analysis looks for common genes in people with addictive behaviour compared to control groups without such behaviour. * The biological explanation overlaps with the behavioural explanation (see below) when we look at reinforcement, which explains that the addiction is in some way rewarding. One way in which reinforcement could be obtained may be biological because there are “pleasure centres” in the brain (Olds & Milner, 1954, see A2 Level Psychology page 612). The “pleasure centres” could be activated as a result of the addiction; in this way the reward pathways in the brain are excited. This interlinks with dopamine since usually high levels of dopamine form part of these pathways.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE AGAINST BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS * A study of over 300 monozygotic (identical) twins and just under 200 same-sex dizygotic (fraternal) twins was used to estimated the contribution of genetic factors and environmental factors to substance use in adolescence. The conclusion was that the major influences on the decision to use substances were environmental rather than genetic (Han et al., 1999, see A2 Level Psychology page 611)
Evaluation of biological explanations * Separating out the effects of addiction. Ashton and Golding (1989, see A2 Level Psychology page 612) show that it is difficult to separate out the effects of addiction. For example, nicotine can affect a number of systems including learning and memory, the control of pain, and the relief of anxiety. This means that it is difficult to pin down a single response that follows smoking a cigarette and this makes it more difficult to explain the initiation and maintenance of the disorder. * Reductionist—ignores social factors. The biological approach ignores social factors, which means it is too reductionist as it reduces everything to biology when there are important social factors such as the escapism associated with taking drugs. * Lack of reliability in genetics analysis findings. The problem with studies on genetics is that the genes identified do not occur in all people with the addictive behaviour and they do appear in some people without it. For example, a gene referred to as DRD2 has been found in 42% of people with alcoholism, 50% of pathological gamblers, 45% of people with Tourette’s syndrome, and 55% of people with autism; it has also been found in 25% of the general population. This means that DRD2 appears more frequently in people with addictions but it also appears in those without and so it cannot be the sole explanation for the behaviour (Comings, 1998, see A2 Level Psychology page 613). Thus, there is a lack of consistency in the nature of the genetic basis across different research studies, which clouds the exact nature of the genetic basis. * Determinism. The genetic explanation can be seen as deterministic because it ignores the individual’s ability to control their own behaviour. This suggests that inheriting a certain genetic sequence makes the addiction inevitable when this is not the case. * Nature or nurture. The brain abnormality, to some extent, is due to genetic factors, but as biological factors lack reliability then nature must interact with nurture. * Diathesis–stress. Genes alone do not determine who will develop an addiction—they only create vulnerability. Thus, they are not a direct cause as other factors must trigger the disorder. Evidence for this is that the concordance rates are not 100%, which shows that addiction is due to an interaction of genetic and other factors.
Behavioural (learning) explanations of addictive behaviour
Behavioural (i.e. learning) explanations include classical and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning may explain the association of the addictive behaviour with pleasure and/or excitement and so account for the initiation of the addictive behaviour. Operant conditioning explains behaviour in terms of rewards and punishments, and, as you will see below, partial reinforcement can be a powerful factor in the maintenance of addictions.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE ON BEHAVIOURAL (LEARNING) EXPLANATIONS * The extent of behaviour change depends on the schedule of reinforcement: partial reinforcement is more effective than continuous reinforcement. If reinforcement is continuous then the behaviour ceases as soon as the reinforcement does. However, if the reinforcement is on a partial and variable schedule this means the reinforcement is unpredictable and the behaviour continues, presumably because one cannot be sure when the next reinforcement will happen. This explains the maintenance of addictive behaviours, especially gambling, because of course never knowing when the next win is going to happen is a form of partial and variable reinforcement. * Classical conditioning models suggest that people continue to gamble as a result of becoming conditioned to the excitement or arousal associated with gambling, so that they feel bored, unstimulated, and restless when they are not gambling.
Evaluation of behavioural (learning) explanations * Applications. Classical and operant perspectives have been central to the development of measures of “impaired control” over gambling (Dickerson & O’Connor, 2006, see A2 Level Psychology page 613) and clinical interventions using desensitisation, aversive conditioning, and satiation techniques, so the research has real-world applications. * Classical conditioning explains initiation, not maintenance. Classical conditioning seems useful to explain people’s motivation to commence a gambling session, but appears less useful to explain persistent gambling behaviour, so it explains initiation more than maintenance. * Operant conditioning doesn’t explain acquisition or relapse very well but does explain maintenance. Operant conditioning is less useful in explaining why people commence gambling or recommence gambling after a prolonged period of abstinence (Griffiths, 1995, see A2 Level Psychology page 613). It does not explain why people start gambling, because how do they know the addictive behaviour will be rewarding before they have tried it? It explains maintenance better since once the rewards are established this explains why the addiction continues. It doesn’t really explain relapses because usually the abstinence is because the addictive behaviour is at this point associated more with punishment than rewards, so operant conditioning would predict extinction not a resurgence of the addictive behaviour. * Gamblers lose more than they win. Researchers have questioned the extent to which behaviour like excessive gambling adheres to operant theory at all, since gamblers lose more than they win (Delfabbro & Winefield, 1999, see A2 Level Psychology page 613). * Individual differences. Rewards are subjective, i.e. open to interpretation, and so conditioning theories lack generalisability as they do not fully account for why people exposed to similar stimuli respond differently; why some smoke, drink, or gamble whereas others do not, or why some people smoke, drink, or gamble more than others. Thus, the explanation does not account for such individual differences and so cannot explain addictive behaviour fully. * Varying explanatory power for different forms of addiction. Operant conditioning does not explain different forms of gambling equally well. It accounts well for slot machine and scratch card gambling, because there is a short time interval between stake and outcome, and the outcome is entirely due to chance. However, it is more difficult to apply these principles to skilled gambling games such as blackjack, poker, and sports betting, because in these forms of gambling player decisions can significantly influence outcomes. * Ignores cognition. The behavioural approach does not consider cognition because cognition is neither observable nor measurable and this is a significant omission because, as the above point considers, some forms of gambling do involve a great deal of decision making and therefore cognition. Even in less sophisticated forms expectations play some role, so the ignoring of cognition is a weakness.
Cognitive explanations of addictive behaviour
Cognitive explanations focus on the way that we process information. If we are making faulty judgements then we might develop addictive behaviours. This explanation is not nearly as clear cut as it sounds because faulty thinking is what keeps us going. For example, some research suggests the only reason people don’t become depressed is that they have a rose-tinted view of the world and that a positive bias about ourselves allows us to judge ourselves as more competent than we really are—how depressing!
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS * Research suggests that gamblers overestimate the extent to which they can predict or influence gambling outcomes and tend to misjudge how much money they have won or lost (Langer, 1975; Langer & Roth, 1983, see A2 Level Psychology page 614) * Studies conducted using the so-called “thinking aloud” method (Griffiths, 1994, see A2 Level Psychology page 614), reveal high levels of irrationality in verbalised statements made during gambling sessions. For example, explaining away losses often involves hindsight bias with players predicting events after they happen, such as concluding they knew the machine wasn’t going to pay out because it had paid out earlier! Others personify the machine and frequently swear at it. * Faulty thinking includes gamblers’ overconfidence in their ability to win money (Wagenaar, 1988; Walker 1992, see A2 Level Psychology page 615). Evidence suggests that problem gamblers frequently overestimate the amount of control and skill involved in gambling (Griffiths, 1994; Parke et al., 2007 see A2 Level Psychology page 615).
RESEARCH EVIDENCE AGAINST COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS * Dickerson and Baron (2000, see A2 Level Psychology page 615) have concluded that irrational thinking is probably more a reflection of demand characteristics than a rational underlying behaviour. Thus, the statements made that seem to illustrate cognitive biases may be due to the difficulty of trying to come up with rational, meaningful statements in chance-determined situations.
Evaluation of cognitive explanations * Cause and effect. It could be argued that cognitive biases reflect behaviour rather than cause it (particularly if they are used as a justification of the behaviour). * Usefulness of the findings. However, research on cognitive biases in gambling behaviour may help to provide insights into other types of addictive bias. For instance, smokers and drinkers may rationalise their behaviour following their actions in much the same way in which gamblers do. * Context needs to be considered. Contextual factors seem to play a role in cognitive research. For example, Griffiths (1994, see A2 Level Psychology page 616) found that regular gamblers had greater difficulty than occasional players in verbalising their thoughts while they were gambling. Regular players seemed capable of gambling without attending to what they were doing, suggesting: (1) that cognitive processes did not play a major role in the maintenance of their behaviour; or (2) that the original justifications or rationales for behaviour were less accessible. In either case, Griffiths’ observations suggested that temporal factors (namely, how long a person has been gambling) appear to be important. Thus, cognitive factors may hold more validity for infrequent gamblers than for regular players. * How faulty is the cognition? Some forms of gambling do involve skilful play (e.g. racing, blackjack, table poker). The more people play or know about these activities, the greater their awareness of the skills involved. Thus, beliefs about control and skill may not be completely irrational. * Multi-perspective. It should also be noted that psychological explanations are insufficient to explain the full complexity of addiction and that a unified theory of addiction will be complex and biopsychosocial (Griffiths, 2006, 2008, see A2 Level Psychology page 616).
So what does this mean?
A multi-perspective best accounts for the development of addiction. Initiation can be explained by a complex interplay of biology, learning, and irrational beliefs. Central to research is to ascertain whether addicts possess qualities that would predispose them to excessive gambling.
The idea of a biological disposition is attractive because it offers a general theory of addiction. However, is not sufficient to say this is the key causative factor as it does not explain why one individual exposed to the same stimuli develops an addiction and the other does not, nor does it account for the type of addiction that develops.
Addiction is a multi-faceted behaviour that is strongly influenced by contextual factors that cannot be explained by any single theoretical perspective. Research and clinical interventions are best served by a biopsychosocial approach that incorporates the best strands of contemporary psychology, biology, and sociology.
Over to you
1. Outline and evaluate one or more models of addiction. (25 marks)