Tuesday 26 January 2016
Cultural influences on relationships
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Several key differences exist between western and traditionalist cultures in their attitudes to love and marriage. In western, individualist cultures, partners are freely chosen during the dating process, based on attraction. Marriage is seen as an alliance and union between two people, yet a temporary one that can be terminated fairly easily. In traditional, collectivist cultures, arranged marriages are more common, based on the idea that parents know who is compatible in the long-term for their children better than the children do. Choosing a partner based on attraction is believed to lead to an unsuccessful marriage - marriage is seen as more permanent, being impossible or difficult to terminate, and is considered an alliance and a union between two social groups rather than two individuals.
Arranged marriages are sometimes suggested to be more successful than love marriages if measured by the metrics of divorce rate and long term satisfaction.
Gupta and Singh provide supporting evidence for arranged marriages being more successful than love marriages. In a study of 100 professional and educated couples from Jaipur, India, they assessed relationship satisfaction over 1, 5 and 10 years using Rubin's "Like and Love" scale. Love marriages started high in both categories and decreased over time, whereas arranged marriages started lower and increased overtime, exceeding love marriages in both categories after 10 years. This supports the concept of different styles of marriage leading to different quality interpersonal relationships.
However, a study by Xioahe and Whyte challenges Gupta and Singh's suggestion that arranged marriages are more successful. A study during a period of rapid modernisation in China found that women in love marriages were much happier than those in arranged marriages.
Cultural bias was an issue with Gupta and Singh's study, due to their use of Rubin's measuring scale based around U.S culture being applied to India. The cross-cultural use of a survey designed to measure relationship satisfaction in America is imposing an etic, assuming that the metric will work the same way in both cultures, when in fact it could be a less reliable indicator in Gupta and Singh's study than in the cultural context Rubin devised it in.
Another issue is that these studies can be considered unscientific, using subjective self-report data. Responses could not accurately reflect real life relationship success due to people's inaccurate perceptions of their own relationships, difficulties in trying to quantify "like" and "love", and giving untrue responses due to social desirability bias.
There are validity issues with the use of divorce rates as a measure of relationship success, the measure used to suggest that arranged marriages are more successful than love marriages. Divorce means a relationship is unsuccessful, but a lack of divorce does not mean that a relationship is successful. Cultures that practice arranged marriages often hold a stigma towards divorce - it is often illegal, socially unacceptable, or only able to initiated by the husband.
Divorce often stigmatises an entire family, so there can be family pressure to stay together in an unsuccessful relationship. The dowries that are often given from the wife's family to the husband makes marriage like a transaction - as if the female is bought by the husband. Social pressures, a lack of financial independence, lack of legal rights, and being considered "tainted goods" after divorce could all make divorce from a bad relationship impractical for women.
The shift from a traditional and rural lifestyle to an urban one brings greater geographical and social mobility, leading to interaction with more people, widening the "field of availables." In comparison, people from rural populations have less mobility and a smaller field. Divorce rates seem to be linked to urbanisation.
Dummett (2011) linked India's sharp increase in divorce rates to the high social mobility of India's emerging urban middle class, suggesting a causal link - urbanisation caused the higher divorce rate.
However, it could be that city dwellers just have more relaxed attitudes towards divorce as the values of the middle class progress and become more westernised. City females also have more financial independence that those from rural communities, so divorce is more practical due to money being less of a setback.
The rapid exposure to the views and values of other cultures after immigration is suggested to affect the thinking of second generation migrants, causing an internal conflict of values between those of the host culture and those of their older family members which more closely reflect their family's home culture. The process of acculturalisation occurs - internalising the views of their host culture, which can cause conflict and stress.
Research by Zaidi and Shuraydi (2002) supports this hypothesis. They studied 2nd generation Pakistani Muslim women in Canada, and found that most favoured westernised marriage practices, but perceived their fathers to be resistant to change, preferring the cultural practice of arranged marriages. This demonstrates that migration can cause cultural conflicts in the attitudes to relationships between 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.
Monday 25 January 2016
Childhood and adolescent influences on relationships
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Bowlby's theory of attachment suggests that certain behaviours such as laughing, crying and smiling, that promote attachment formation between a parent and their child, have evolved to be innate "social releasers", increasing the chance of the child's survival. Bowlby developed this to include the principle of "monotropy" - that children form a strongest relationship to their primary caregiver, and the concept of an "internal working model" - a collection of schemas that help the child define how future relationships should be. The internal working model then plays a role in the "continuity hypothesis" - Bowlby's suggestion that the quality of the first relationships in childhood are mirrored by adult relationships - loving, secure and affectionate childhood are often followed by the same in adulthood.
Black and Schutte provide supporting evidence for the continuity hypothesis through a survey of 205 young adults on their childhood and adult relationships. Those who recalled positive, loving and trusting maternal relationships were more likely to report trusting and loving relationships with their partner in adulthood, as well as being more open with them, supporting Bowlby's claims of continuity of attachment.
An issue is that Black and Schutte's study can be considered unscientific due to its subjective methodology, asking people retrospectively about their early life. This form of data collection is unfalsifiable, unquantifiable, and possibly inaccurate due to social desirability bias - people might not be willing to admit a poor relationship quality. These methodological flaws weaken the strength of the supporting evidence for Bowlby's continuity hypothesis.
Ainsworth carried out the "Strange Situation" observation to categorise the strength and type of attachment in children, and suggested that attachment types remain constant throughout life - for example, a securely attached child will grow up to have securely attached romantic relationships later in life. She identified three types of attachment: Insecure Avoidant (Type A) who showed some distress at separation from their mother, but did not seek comfort upon reunion, Secure (Type B) who were upset at separation but showed joy and sought comfort upon reunion, and Insecure Ambivalent (Type C) who showed distress upon separation but weren't easily comforted upon reunion, expecting a difficult maternal relationship and alternating between seeking closeness and distance.
Levine and Heller (2011) provided supporting evidence for Ainsworth's suggested continuity of attachment types. People who had secure attachments in childhood were comfortable with intimacy, and usually warm and loving towards their partners. Those who had insecure-ambivalent relationships crave intimacy, are often preoccupied with their relationships, and worry about their partners' ability to love them back. Those who were insecure-avoidant equate intimacy with a loss of independence, and keep at an emotional distance - these findings support the hypothesis that Ainsworth's attachment styles predict later relationship behaviour.
Hazan and Shaver found a strong connection between childhood and adult attachment styles, supporting the importance of Ainsworth's early attachment styles in determining future relationships. Securely attached participants reported a belief in lasting love, found others trustworthy, and were confident that they were lovable. Insecure avoidant participants were doubtful about the existence of love, not requiring a relationship to be happy. Insecure ambivalent participants fell in love easily, were insecure and doubtful, and rarely found true love.
The idea that childhood attachment type is solely responsible for adult relationship style, with no other factors, is a very deterministic idea. Zimmerman et al (2000) assessed children until adulthood, and found that critical life events such as parental separation were a much stronger predictor of future attachment type and strength than the quality of early childhood attachments were, suggesting that Bowlby and Ainsworths' hypotheses are overly determinist in claiming that adult relationship quality is completely and irrevocably dependent on childhood attachment type.
An issue with these theories into the influence of childhood on relationships is that parenting styles differ between cultures, suggesting that childhood influences also vary cross-culturally. Therefore, to generalise results from one culture onto another and suggest a global model of attachment and relationships is imposing an etic construct. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's 1988 meta-analysis of many cross-cultural studies into attachment found significant differences in how common each attachment style is - secure attachments may be most common in the UK and the USA, but others were more common in Germany and Israel. This suggests that there are different internal working models in different cultures, so these theories of attachment cannot necessarily be accurately applied globally.
Koluchova's study of a pair of Czech twins challenges Ainsworth and Bowlby's theories of attachment continuity. Having suffered extreme privation and abuse from age 18 months until 7 years, the twins did not form any parental attachments, and were starved and beaten. However, they went on to be adopted and grew up to have normal lives and secure relationships. This shows that difficulties with childhood attachments can be overcome, and that childhood attachment types will not always predict the nature of adult relationship types.
Learning / Behavioural explanations of addiction
You're likely to be asked to apply the learning theories to either the initiation, maintenance and relapse of addiction, or a specific scenario that the question outlines, but generic "discuss the learning approach to smoking/gambling" questions are also possible.
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
The behavioural explanation of addiction explains addictive behaviour as a result of three mechanisms: classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and social learning theory. Classical Conditioning explains addiction as being learnt through association: associations form between addictive behaviours and the situation in which a behaviour is carried out, providing a situational cue to trigger the behaviour. For example, one who smokes whenever they're with a certain group of friends will form an association between those friends and smoking, so being with those friends will trigger cravings for nicotine. Cravings can also explain relapse through classical conditioning, as situations trigger cravings due to previously forming associations.
Thewissen (2008) found supporting evidence for classical conditioning's role in the maintenance and relapse of addictive behaviour. Smokers put in a room with cues associated with smoking had significantly more cravings for nicotine than smokers put in a room with cues associated with smoking unavailability - situations where people would normally smoke trigger a continuation of the addictive behaviour, or a relapse if people have attempted to quit.
Further research support comes from a study on US soldiers in the Vietnam War. The soldiers became addicted to heroin while in Vietnam and experienced withdrawal symptoms while there, but when back in the USA they were far less likely to relapse as they were not experiencing the sight and sound cues that they had association with heroin while there.
This is also an implication for treatment - if certain environmental cues (sights and sounds) make relapse more likely, then a treatment program aimed at exposing the addict to these cues without providing them opportunity to carry out the addictive behaviour will lead to successful treatment, through extinction of the association.
Hogarth (2010) supports classical conditioning as an explanation for maintenance and relapse, through principles of association - cravings significantly increased if a stimulus associated with smoking was presented, providing a cue for carrying out the addictive behaviour.
Operant Conditioning explains addiction as being learnt through positive reinforcement, punishment, and negative reinforcement. In the case of smoking, someone may be alienated and rejected by their social circle due to not taking drugs (punishment). They then initiate the addictive behaviour of drug taking in order to escape this alienation (negative reinforcement), and are rewarded by approval and a sense of belonging to the group (positive reinforcement.) On attempting to quit their addictive behaviour, biological withdrawal symptoms and social rejection may both contribute to relapse by being negative stimuli that can only be escaped by relapsing to the addictive behaviour (escape learning.) Classical and operant conditioning cannot explain initiation very well - the associations can only form and the reinforcements only work once the addictive behaviour has already been initiated.
Griffiths (2009) identified 3 components that serve as positive reinforcement in gamblers, supporting the role of operant conditioning as an explanation of gambling addiction. Physiological rewards such as dopamine release and endorphins from the EOS, social rewards such as attention and congratulations, and financial rewards all make the behaviour of gambling more likely to be repeated and become pathological.
However, Sharpe (2002) criticised operant conditioning's explanation of gambling addiction by claiming that variable ratio reinforcement explains social and casual gambling but cannot explain pathological gambling where sustained, long-term financial losses occur. Variable ratio reinforcement is gambling based around a randomised, average-based payout system rather than a consistent win-loss pattern - explaining why people gamble occasionally if they feel "lucky" but not why they will continue gambling over a prolonged period of time and financial loss.
Mayeux (2008) identified smoking addiction in teenagers as a result of positive reinforcement through social approval and popularity, finding a positive correlation between smoking and popularity in 16-year-old boys. These findings support operant conditioning as an explanation of nicotine addiction - social approval as positive reinforcement that makes future smoking more likely.
Goldberg (1981) found further supporting evidence for the role of operant conditioning in smoking addiction, finding that monkeys in a Skinner box would repeatedly press a lever to receive nicotine, suggesting that positive reinforcement does lead to the development of an addictive behaviour.
Social Learning Theory explains addiction as the result of observation and imitation of role models, as well as vicarious learning through reward or punishment of the model. Models can either be live models, such as parents, peers, or siblings, or symbolic models such as celebrities or fictional characters. If someone observes a model carrying out an addictive behaviour such as gambling, they are more likely to repeat it (imitation) - even more so if the model is rewarded for addictive behaviour, such as winning a large payout from a bet. This explains initiation well - people are likely to start an addictive behaviour by copying a peer, but does not explain maintenance or relapse as well.
Research evidence supports SLT as an explanation of pathological gambling - Lambos (2007) found problem gamblers more likely to have peers and family members who approve of gambling, while Oei and Raylu (2004) found that childrens' attitudes to gambling are influenced by parental attitudes, particularly those of their father.
Karcher and Finn (2005) supports SLT as an explanation of smoking initiation - teens whose parents smoked were nearly twice as likely to start smoking, and nearly thrice as likely if their siblings smoked - observing and imitating the behaviour of family models lead to an addiction developing.
The U.S National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) found that 90% of US smokers started as adolescents through observation of peers, suggesting that SLT is the best explanation of the initiation of smoking.
Murray (1984) found that if parents had strong anti-smoking attitudes, their children were 7 times less likely to start smoking, implicating parents as a very important model in the process of social learning and addiction development.
Children’s attitudes towards and risk of developing addictive behaviours could be a result of social learning from parents, but correlations between addicted parents and addicted children could also suggest a genetic basis to addictive behaviour that is inherited from their parents, rather than the role of learning mechanisms.
Behaviourist theories of addiction could be considered too reductionist, explaining a complex system of behaviours as a result of simple learning processes. Additionally, they ignores evidence for a biological basis for addiction, such as research that suggests the genetic heritability of smoking addiction resulting from the lack of the SLC6A3 – 9 gene. Addictive behaviour is unlikely to be a result of just biological or environmental factors; it is more likely to be a combination of both systems.
Classical conditioning suggests that stimulus-response associations form that would put people off drugs if they ever had a negative response to them, but most people who drink alcohol drink anyway despite negative experiences – and many people have especially negative experiences on their first time taking drugs, but continue to take them anyway. This suggests that many more complex factors must play a role, such as cognitive and social motives for indulging in the addictive behaviour.
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
The behavioural explanation of addiction explains addictive behaviour as a result of three mechanisms: classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and social learning theory. Classical Conditioning explains addiction as being learnt through association: associations form between addictive behaviours and the situation in which a behaviour is carried out, providing a situational cue to trigger the behaviour. For example, one who smokes whenever they're with a certain group of friends will form an association between those friends and smoking, so being with those friends will trigger cravings for nicotine. Cravings can also explain relapse through classical conditioning, as situations trigger cravings due to previously forming associations.
Thewissen (2008) found supporting evidence for classical conditioning's role in the maintenance and relapse of addictive behaviour. Smokers put in a room with cues associated with smoking had significantly more cravings for nicotine than smokers put in a room with cues associated with smoking unavailability - situations where people would normally smoke trigger a continuation of the addictive behaviour, or a relapse if people have attempted to quit.
Further research support comes from a study on US soldiers in the Vietnam War. The soldiers became addicted to heroin while in Vietnam and experienced withdrawal symptoms while there, but when back in the USA they were far less likely to relapse as they were not experiencing the sight and sound cues that they had association with heroin while there.
This is also an implication for treatment - if certain environmental cues (sights and sounds) make relapse more likely, then a treatment program aimed at exposing the addict to these cues without providing them opportunity to carry out the addictive behaviour will lead to successful treatment, through extinction of the association.
Hogarth (2010) supports classical conditioning as an explanation for maintenance and relapse, through principles of association - cravings significantly increased if a stimulus associated with smoking was presented, providing a cue for carrying out the addictive behaviour.
Operant Conditioning explains addiction as being learnt through positive reinforcement, punishment, and negative reinforcement. In the case of smoking, someone may be alienated and rejected by their social circle due to not taking drugs (punishment). They then initiate the addictive behaviour of drug taking in order to escape this alienation (negative reinforcement), and are rewarded by approval and a sense of belonging to the group (positive reinforcement.) On attempting to quit their addictive behaviour, biological withdrawal symptoms and social rejection may both contribute to relapse by being negative stimuli that can only be escaped by relapsing to the addictive behaviour (escape learning.) Classical and operant conditioning cannot explain initiation very well - the associations can only form and the reinforcements only work once the addictive behaviour has already been initiated.
Griffiths (2009) identified 3 components that serve as positive reinforcement in gamblers, supporting the role of operant conditioning as an explanation of gambling addiction. Physiological rewards such as dopamine release and endorphins from the EOS, social rewards such as attention and congratulations, and financial rewards all make the behaviour of gambling more likely to be repeated and become pathological.
However, Sharpe (2002) criticised operant conditioning's explanation of gambling addiction by claiming that variable ratio reinforcement explains social and casual gambling but cannot explain pathological gambling where sustained, long-term financial losses occur. Variable ratio reinforcement is gambling based around a randomised, average-based payout system rather than a consistent win-loss pattern - explaining why people gamble occasionally if they feel "lucky" but not why they will continue gambling over a prolonged period of time and financial loss.
Mayeux (2008) identified smoking addiction in teenagers as a result of positive reinforcement through social approval and popularity, finding a positive correlation between smoking and popularity in 16-year-old boys. These findings support operant conditioning as an explanation of nicotine addiction - social approval as positive reinforcement that makes future smoking more likely.
Goldberg (1981) found further supporting evidence for the role of operant conditioning in smoking addiction, finding that monkeys in a Skinner box would repeatedly press a lever to receive nicotine, suggesting that positive reinforcement does lead to the development of an addictive behaviour.
Social Learning Theory explains addiction as the result of observation and imitation of role models, as well as vicarious learning through reward or punishment of the model. Models can either be live models, such as parents, peers, or siblings, or symbolic models such as celebrities or fictional characters. If someone observes a model carrying out an addictive behaviour such as gambling, they are more likely to repeat it (imitation) - even more so if the model is rewarded for addictive behaviour, such as winning a large payout from a bet. This explains initiation well - people are likely to start an addictive behaviour by copying a peer, but does not explain maintenance or relapse as well.
Research evidence supports SLT as an explanation of pathological gambling - Lambos (2007) found problem gamblers more likely to have peers and family members who approve of gambling, while Oei and Raylu (2004) found that childrens' attitudes to gambling are influenced by parental attitudes, particularly those of their father.
Karcher and Finn (2005) supports SLT as an explanation of smoking initiation - teens whose parents smoked were nearly twice as likely to start smoking, and nearly thrice as likely if their siblings smoked - observing and imitating the behaviour of family models lead to an addiction developing.
The U.S National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) found that 90% of US smokers started as adolescents through observation of peers, suggesting that SLT is the best explanation of the initiation of smoking.
Murray (1984) found that if parents had strong anti-smoking attitudes, their children were 7 times less likely to start smoking, implicating parents as a very important model in the process of social learning and addiction development.
Overall Evaluation
Behaviourist theories of addiction could be considered too reductionist, explaining a complex system of behaviours as a result of simple learning processes. Additionally, they ignores evidence for a biological basis for addiction, such as research that suggests the genetic heritability of smoking addiction resulting from the lack of the SLC6A3 – 9 gene. Addictive behaviour is unlikely to be a result of just biological or environmental factors; it is more likely to be a combination of both systems.
Classical conditioning suggests that stimulus-response associations form that would put people off drugs if they ever had a negative response to them, but most people who drink alcohol drink anyway despite negative experiences – and many people have especially negative experiences on their first time taking drugs, but continue to take them anyway. This suggests that many more complex factors must play a role, such as cognitive and social motives for indulging in the addictive behaviour.
Operant conditioning and social learning theory do not explain why people carry out addictive behaviours that cause rejection from peer groups or have definite social stigmas associated with them, such as the use of “hard drugs” such as heroin and methamphetamine.
Behaviourist theories of addiction are also overly deterministic, explaining addictive behaviour as being caused entirely by learning processes and leaving very little room for the role of human free will. Lots of people who grow up in areas where drug-taking is a social norm, but do not grow up to take drugs themselves as social learning theory would suggest, implying that free will can play a significant role in the lack of addictive behaviour development.
Thursday 21 January 2016
Aversion therapy as a psychological treatment for addiction
Quite a short topic here - like everything else on addiction, they've never really asked anything more than a 10-marker on this! Be prepared to be asked to apply this for AO2 marks - this can happen.
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Aversion therapy is based on classical conditioning, eliminating the association between the addictive behaviour and pleasure, and forming a new association between the addictive behaviour and unpleasant consequences. Alcohol is often paired with an emetic to induce vomiting and to form a new association, the most commonly used emetic being disulfiram. Usually administered through a tablet or surgical implant, disulfiram prevents the body from metabolising alcohol, causing unpleasant, hangover-type effects whenever a small amount of alcohol is consumed, such as nausea, vomiting, headache, chest pains, weakness ands anxiety. A new association is formed between alcohol and the host of negative of symptoms, replacing pleasure with pain and discouraging people from taking any more alcohol.
While the negative effects such as nausea are actually desired consequences of the treatment, required in order for the association replacement to be successful, disulfiram can have several negative side effects that occur even in the absence of alcohol. These can include liver damage, drowsiness, and fatigue due to the disulfiram metabolite tryptophol, and extrapyramidal symptoms (drug-induced movement disorders) such as muscle spasms and motor irregularity.
Krampe et al (2006) found supporting evidence for the effectiveness of aversion therapy in their double blind, longitudinal study of 180 alcoholics attempting to quit, comparing a group taking disulfiram to a group taking a placebo. An abstinence rate after 9 years of at least 50% was found in the disulfiram group, far higher than that of a placebo, suggesting that drug-assisted aversion therapy is a very effective method of reducing alcoholism.
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Aversion therapy is based on classical conditioning, eliminating the association between the addictive behaviour and pleasure, and forming a new association between the addictive behaviour and unpleasant consequences. Alcohol is often paired with an emetic to induce vomiting and to form a new association, the most commonly used emetic being disulfiram. Usually administered through a tablet or surgical implant, disulfiram prevents the body from metabolising alcohol, causing unpleasant, hangover-type effects whenever a small amount of alcohol is consumed, such as nausea, vomiting, headache, chest pains, weakness ands anxiety. A new association is formed between alcohol and the host of negative of symptoms, replacing pleasure with pain and discouraging people from taking any more alcohol.
While the negative effects such as nausea are actually desired consequences of the treatment, required in order for the association replacement to be successful, disulfiram can have several negative side effects that occur even in the absence of alcohol. These can include liver damage, drowsiness, and fatigue due to the disulfiram metabolite tryptophol, and extrapyramidal symptoms (drug-induced movement disorders) such as muscle spasms and motor irregularity.
Krampe et al (2006) found supporting evidence for the effectiveness of aversion therapy in their double blind, longitudinal study of 180 alcoholics attempting to quit, comparing a group taking disulfiram to a group taking a placebo. An abstinence rate after 9 years of at least 50% was found in the disulfiram group, far higher than that of a placebo, suggesting that drug-assisted aversion therapy is a very effective method of reducing alcoholism.
Fuller et al (1986) carried
out a controlled blind study of 605 men, assigned to disulfiram, a placebo, or
no treatment. There were no significant long-term differences between groups in
total abstinence, social stability, or time until relapse – disulfiram was
found to reduce drinking frequency after relapse, but did not make patients
more likely to successfully remain abstinent – challenging the drug’s reported
effectiveness as a stimulus in aversion therapy.
Jørgensen et al (2011) carried
out a meta-analysis and found Disulfiram to be more effective than placebos or
other treatments on rates of abstinence, days until relapse and number of
drinking days, suggesting that drug-assisted aversion therapy is a very
effective alcoholism reduction method. However,
one limitation of the analysis was that the vast majority of the studies only
studied the effectiveness of Disulfiram over a short period of time.
Tablets might be better due to psychological
establishment of routine daily actions based around ending alcoholism, implants
might be better due to not being removable – if people really want to relapse
on tablets they can just stop taking them, and there’s no option like this with
an implant.
Monday 18 January 2016
Theories of relationship breakdown
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Rollie and Duck's model of relationship breakdown differentiates between three categories of breakup: the "Pre-existing doom", where demographic or personal differences between the partners are so pronounced that breakup is almost inevitable, "Mechanical failure", where two suitable partners of goodwill and good nature find that they cannot cope with the pressures of living together, and "Sudden death", where the discovery of a betrayal or infidelity leads to the immediate termination of a relationship. They suggested lack of skills, lack of stimulation, and maintenance difficulties as potential reasons for "mechanical failure."
When dissatisfaction with the relationship first sets in, the process of breakdown goes through five distinct phases. Firstly, intrapsychic processes, where a person broods on the shortcomings in their relationship and their partners' faults, grows resentful of their relationship problems, and re-evaluates their alternatives to the relationship. This is followed by dyadic processes, where uncertainty, anxiety and complaints lead to a discussion of the relationship, aiming to reach a conclusion about equity, roles, possibilities and commitments. If a solution cannot be reached, this leads to social processes - the couple "go public" about their breakup, seeking support from peers, build alliances, and seek new social commitments. Next are grave-dressing processes, where the ex-partners tidy up memories, make relational histories, and prepare stories for different audiences. Finally comes the resurrection processes, where the individual recreates their own sense of social value, defines their expectations for future relationships, and prepares for a different kind of relational future.
Rollie and Duck's model is supported by observations of real-life breakups. Tashiro and Frazier surveyed students who had recently gone through a romantic breakup, and found that they typically reported not only emotional distress, but also personal growth - breaking up had given them new insights into themselves and a clearer idea about future partners. Through grave-dressing and resurrection processes, they were able to put the original relationship behind, learn from it, and move on with their life.
This is a highly socially sensitive area of research, and carrying out studies raises issues of vulnerability (participants may experience emotional distress when revisiting issues that lead to breakdown), privacy (many such issues are incredibly personal) and confidentiality. For example, a participant in an abusive relationship may fear recrimination from her partner should they discover their participation in the research - the research must choose between the further pursuit of information, or terminating the participant's involvement to protect them from harm.
Research has found gender differences in relationship breakdown, suggesting that the processes do not happen in the same way for both genders. Brehm and Kassin (1996) found that women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, whereas men are particularly upset by "sexual withholding." Akert (1998) found that women have more desire to stay friends after a relationship has broken up, whereas men want to cut their losses and move on - both studies support the idea of gender differences in relationship breakdown.
The concept of a lack of interpersonal skills leading to relationship breakdown is supported by a study by Duck (1991), where he found that individuals lacking social skills may be poor conversationalists, poor at indicating their interest in other people, and generally unrewarding in their interactions with others. These factors often lead to relationship breakdown as others perceive them as not being interested in relating to others, so a relationship falls apart before it really gets going.
Rollie and Duck's model stresses the importance of communication in relationship breakdown. Paying attention to the things people say, the topics they discuss and the ways they talk about their relationship offers an insight into their stage of breakdown, and suggests appropriate interventions based on the stage. If the relationship was in the intrapsychic stage, for example, repair might involve re-establishing liking for their partner, maybe re-evaluating their behaviour in a more positive light. In later stages, people outside the relationship such as peers and family might be more effective at solving relationship difficulties.
The importance of social skills deficits in relationship breakdown has led to a valuable real-world application, in the development of training programs that attempt to enhance these skills in troubled couples. The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) aims to sensitise couples to issues of equity and respect in the relationship, and to improve communication and problem solving skills. Research has found that partners undergoing CCET reported much higher relationship quality afterwards than a control group.
Baxter (1994) found supporting evidence for a lack of stimulation being a trigger for relationship breakdown, as suggested by Rollie and Duck's model. This factor was often quoted by partners when breaking off - people expect relationships to change and develop, and when they do not, this is seen as sufficient justification to end the relationship or begin a new one (i.e. have an affair.) This is supported by Thibault and Kelly's social exchange theory, which suggests that people attempt to maximise the rewards of their relationship, and a lack of stimulation corresponds to a low level of rewards under SET.
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Rollie and Duck's model of relationship breakdown differentiates between three categories of breakup: the "Pre-existing doom", where demographic or personal differences between the partners are so pronounced that breakup is almost inevitable, "Mechanical failure", where two suitable partners of goodwill and good nature find that they cannot cope with the pressures of living together, and "Sudden death", where the discovery of a betrayal or infidelity leads to the immediate termination of a relationship. They suggested lack of skills, lack of stimulation, and maintenance difficulties as potential reasons for "mechanical failure."
When dissatisfaction with the relationship first sets in, the process of breakdown goes through five distinct phases. Firstly, intrapsychic processes, where a person broods on the shortcomings in their relationship and their partners' faults, grows resentful of their relationship problems, and re-evaluates their alternatives to the relationship. This is followed by dyadic processes, where uncertainty, anxiety and complaints lead to a discussion of the relationship, aiming to reach a conclusion about equity, roles, possibilities and commitments. If a solution cannot be reached, this leads to social processes - the couple "go public" about their breakup, seeking support from peers, build alliances, and seek new social commitments. Next are grave-dressing processes, where the ex-partners tidy up memories, make relational histories, and prepare stories for different audiences. Finally comes the resurrection processes, where the individual recreates their own sense of social value, defines their expectations for future relationships, and prepares for a different kind of relational future.
Rollie and Duck's model is supported by observations of real-life breakups. Tashiro and Frazier surveyed students who had recently gone through a romantic breakup, and found that they typically reported not only emotional distress, but also personal growth - breaking up had given them new insights into themselves and a clearer idea about future partners. Through grave-dressing and resurrection processes, they were able to put the original relationship behind, learn from it, and move on with their life.
This is a highly socially sensitive area of research, and carrying out studies raises issues of vulnerability (participants may experience emotional distress when revisiting issues that lead to breakdown), privacy (many such issues are incredibly personal) and confidentiality. For example, a participant in an abusive relationship may fear recrimination from her partner should they discover their participation in the research - the research must choose between the further pursuit of information, or terminating the participant's involvement to protect them from harm.
Research has found gender differences in relationship breakdown, suggesting that the processes do not happen in the same way for both genders. Brehm and Kassin (1996) found that women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, whereas men are particularly upset by "sexual withholding." Akert (1998) found that women have more desire to stay friends after a relationship has broken up, whereas men want to cut their losses and move on - both studies support the idea of gender differences in relationship breakdown.
The concept of a lack of interpersonal skills leading to relationship breakdown is supported by a study by Duck (1991), where he found that individuals lacking social skills may be poor conversationalists, poor at indicating their interest in other people, and generally unrewarding in their interactions with others. These factors often lead to relationship breakdown as others perceive them as not being interested in relating to others, so a relationship falls apart before it really gets going.
Rollie and Duck's model stresses the importance of communication in relationship breakdown. Paying attention to the things people say, the topics they discuss and the ways they talk about their relationship offers an insight into their stage of breakdown, and suggests appropriate interventions based on the stage. If the relationship was in the intrapsychic stage, for example, repair might involve re-establishing liking for their partner, maybe re-evaluating their behaviour in a more positive light. In later stages, people outside the relationship such as peers and family might be more effective at solving relationship difficulties.
The importance of social skills deficits in relationship breakdown has led to a valuable real-world application, in the development of training programs that attempt to enhance these skills in troubled couples. The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) aims to sensitise couples to issues of equity and respect in the relationship, and to improve communication and problem solving skills. Research has found that partners undergoing CCET reported much higher relationship quality afterwards than a control group.
Baxter (1994) found supporting evidence for a lack of stimulation being a trigger for relationship breakdown, as suggested by Rollie and Duck's model. This factor was often quoted by partners when breaking off - people expect relationships to change and develop, and when they do not, this is seen as sufficient justification to end the relationship or begin a new one (i.e. have an affair.) This is supported by Thibault and Kelly's social exchange theory, which suggests that people attempt to maximise the rewards of their relationship, and a lack of stimulation corresponds to a low level of rewards under SET.
Friday 15 January 2016
The relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Blue - AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Differences in male and female human reproductive behaviour have evolved as a result of different evolutionary selective pressures between the genders. In sexual selection, traits are sought in the opposite sex that are indicative of reproductive success and genetic fitness, and desirable traits differ between genders due to human anisogamy - differences in male and female gametes, and in the degree of parental certainty each gender has.
Males produce many, highly mobile sperm, and can do this fairly regularly over a long period of time - having many hypothetical opportunities for reproduction. Females, however, produce small numbers of larger eggs over a shorter period of time - and have the additional cost of bearing and nurturing children. This gives them far fewer opportunities for reproduction than males, as well as a shorter fertility window. A female's best strategy is to be choosy - selecting the males to mate with who display both genetic fitness, and high levels of status and resources, encouraging males to compete with each other in courtship rituals. A male's best strategy is promiscuity - reproducing with as many fertile females as possible, and only form close bonds with a select few females if bonding reduces the chances of being cuckolded.
Indicators of fertility in women include a youthful appearance, a symmetrical face, and a waist: hip ratio of 0.7, producing the typical "hourglass figure", a preference that exists cross-culturally despite cultural preferences for curvier or slimmer figures. Desirable traits in males include wealth and status that suggest ability to provide for the female and their child, as well as indicators of fertility and genetic fitness such as a square jaw, body symmetry, above-average height and small eyes.
Dunbar and Waynforth (1995) found evidence that supports the predictions of evolutionary theory by showing the same gender differences in sexual selection that evolutionary theory hypothesises. From cross-cultural data collected from across 33 countries, males were found to value physical attractiveness and youth, supporting the idea that males seek fertility in females. Females were found to value financial capacity, ambition and industriousness in males - supporting the idea that females seek indicators of resource richness and the ability to provide for them and their children.
Although a common criticism of evolutionary theory is that predictions are impossible to directly test through experimental procedure, and therefore unfalsifiable and unscientific, Dunbar and Waynforth's study worked around this issue by devising a different methodology to test the theory. Rather than using an experimental design, they made predictions based on evolutionary theory's principles of sexual selection, and found evidence that their predictions were correct, treating evolutionary theory more scientifically than is possible through experiment alone.
Evidence that gender differences in human sexual selection affect reproductive behaviour comes from Clark and Hatfield's 1989 study into gender attitudes towards casual sex in university students. When approached with an offer of sex, all female "participants" declined, while 75% of male participants accepted. This supports the concept of different adaptive sexual strategies between genders - with a much more limited reproductive capacity than men, choosiness is more likely to be a beneficial strategy for women, whereas men's reproductive capacities are less limited by biological constraints, so promiscuity is a much more adaptive strategy. This link between adaptive sexual strategies and reproductive behaviour is evidenced by the gender differences in willingness to have casual sex.
However, Clark and Hatfield's sample is potentially biased, approaching only university students, and therefore not representative of the general population. Certain aspects of university culture make casual sex more acceptable and encouraged than in other sectors of society, so their results cannot necessarily be generalised, as acceptance rates may have been different.
A key issue with studies into promiscuity is that cultural factors could have affected the validity of the results. There is more of a social stigma to promiscuity in women than in men, so female participants in Clark and Hatfield's study could have been less likely to accept the offer of casual sex than men because of the social taboo, rather than because of evolutionary gender differences in reproductive behaviour.
Cultural bias is also an issue here when trying to apply results globally - the reported disparity in sexual strategies could be more a product of cultural norms than evolutionary gender differences in reproductive behaviour, and therefore would not apply cross-culturally. Casual sex and promiscuity is much more acceptable in some cultures than others - it is imposing an etic to generalise Clark and Hatfield's results from an American study to less tolerant countries like Saudi Arabia, so conclusions cannot necessarily be generalised.
Further evidence for gender differences in human sexual selection affecting reproductive behaviour comes from Buss and Schmidt's 1993 study into each gender's desired number of sexual partners. Over the course of the next two years, men chose an average of 8 partners compared to women's 1, and over the course of a lifetime, men chose an average of 18 partners compared to women's 4 or 5. Men seeking more partners is predicted by evolutionary theory - due to their higher reproductive capacity, men can afford to be less rigorous with their sexual selection criteria than women, and favour a reproductive strategy of promiscuity. With more of a reproductive limit, evolutionary theory predicts that women will be more selective in their choice of sexual partners, applying a reproductive strategy of choosiness. Both these predictions are supported by the study.
The evolutionary approach is overly deterministic, stating that we choose mates to reproduce, and that females select a mate for resource provision, whereas males want to spread their genes as widely as possible, investing less in a single child than females do, but having more children overall. There are obvious counter-examples where free will overrides the evolutionary past - couples where the man is younger than the woman, heterosexual couples without children, homosexual couples, stepparents who love and care for their stepchildren. It is too deterministic to suggest that human reproductive behaviour and sexual selection is entirely defined by evolutionary adaptiveness, especially as social change leads to further emphasis on free will in reproductive behaviour.
Furthermore, evolutionary theory's approach to sexual selection and reproductive behaviour is too reductionist, removing human relationships from their social and cultural context to focus only on biological metrics of fertility and genetic fitness. Many factors other than physical appearance and resource acquisition play a role in sexual selection, such as the social demographic variables, similarities of attitudes and beliefs, and the complementarity of emotional needs proposed by Kerkhoff and Davis' filter theory. To reduce human reproductive behaviour down to basic evolutionary traits is an oversimplification of an incredibly complex behaviour system.
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Blue - AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Differences in male and female human reproductive behaviour have evolved as a result of different evolutionary selective pressures between the genders. In sexual selection, traits are sought in the opposite sex that are indicative of reproductive success and genetic fitness, and desirable traits differ between genders due to human anisogamy - differences in male and female gametes, and in the degree of parental certainty each gender has.
Males produce many, highly mobile sperm, and can do this fairly regularly over a long period of time - having many hypothetical opportunities for reproduction. Females, however, produce small numbers of larger eggs over a shorter period of time - and have the additional cost of bearing and nurturing children. This gives them far fewer opportunities for reproduction than males, as well as a shorter fertility window. A female's best strategy is to be choosy - selecting the males to mate with who display both genetic fitness, and high levels of status and resources, encouraging males to compete with each other in courtship rituals. A male's best strategy is promiscuity - reproducing with as many fertile females as possible, and only form close bonds with a select few females if bonding reduces the chances of being cuckolded.
Indicators of fertility in women include a youthful appearance, a symmetrical face, and a waist: hip ratio of 0.7, producing the typical "hourglass figure", a preference that exists cross-culturally despite cultural preferences for curvier or slimmer figures. Desirable traits in males include wealth and status that suggest ability to provide for the female and their child, as well as indicators of fertility and genetic fitness such as a square jaw, body symmetry, above-average height and small eyes.
Dunbar and Waynforth (1995) found evidence that supports the predictions of evolutionary theory by showing the same gender differences in sexual selection that evolutionary theory hypothesises. From cross-cultural data collected from across 33 countries, males were found to value physical attractiveness and youth, supporting the idea that males seek fertility in females. Females were found to value financial capacity, ambition and industriousness in males - supporting the idea that females seek indicators of resource richness and the ability to provide for them and their children.
Although a common criticism of evolutionary theory is that predictions are impossible to directly test through experimental procedure, and therefore unfalsifiable and unscientific, Dunbar and Waynforth's study worked around this issue by devising a different methodology to test the theory. Rather than using an experimental design, they made predictions based on evolutionary theory's principles of sexual selection, and found evidence that their predictions were correct, treating evolutionary theory more scientifically than is possible through experiment alone.
Evidence that gender differences in human sexual selection affect reproductive behaviour comes from Clark and Hatfield's 1989 study into gender attitudes towards casual sex in university students. When approached with an offer of sex, all female "participants" declined, while 75% of male participants accepted. This supports the concept of different adaptive sexual strategies between genders - with a much more limited reproductive capacity than men, choosiness is more likely to be a beneficial strategy for women, whereas men's reproductive capacities are less limited by biological constraints, so promiscuity is a much more adaptive strategy. This link between adaptive sexual strategies and reproductive behaviour is evidenced by the gender differences in willingness to have casual sex.
However, Clark and Hatfield's sample is potentially biased, approaching only university students, and therefore not representative of the general population. Certain aspects of university culture make casual sex more acceptable and encouraged than in other sectors of society, so their results cannot necessarily be generalised, as acceptance rates may have been different.
A key issue with studies into promiscuity is that cultural factors could have affected the validity of the results. There is more of a social stigma to promiscuity in women than in men, so female participants in Clark and Hatfield's study could have been less likely to accept the offer of casual sex than men because of the social taboo, rather than because of evolutionary gender differences in reproductive behaviour.
Cultural bias is also an issue here when trying to apply results globally - the reported disparity in sexual strategies could be more a product of cultural norms than evolutionary gender differences in reproductive behaviour, and therefore would not apply cross-culturally. Casual sex and promiscuity is much more acceptable in some cultures than others - it is imposing an etic to generalise Clark and Hatfield's results from an American study to less tolerant countries like Saudi Arabia, so conclusions cannot necessarily be generalised.
Further evidence for gender differences in human sexual selection affecting reproductive behaviour comes from Buss and Schmidt's 1993 study into each gender's desired number of sexual partners. Over the course of the next two years, men chose an average of 8 partners compared to women's 1, and over the course of a lifetime, men chose an average of 18 partners compared to women's 4 or 5. Men seeking more partners is predicted by evolutionary theory - due to their higher reproductive capacity, men can afford to be less rigorous with their sexual selection criteria than women, and favour a reproductive strategy of promiscuity. With more of a reproductive limit, evolutionary theory predicts that women will be more selective in their choice of sexual partners, applying a reproductive strategy of choosiness. Both these predictions are supported by the study.
The evolutionary approach is overly deterministic, stating that we choose mates to reproduce, and that females select a mate for resource provision, whereas males want to spread their genes as widely as possible, investing less in a single child than females do, but having more children overall. There are obvious counter-examples where free will overrides the evolutionary past - couples where the man is younger than the woman, heterosexual couples without children, homosexual couples, stepparents who love and care for their stepchildren. It is too deterministic to suggest that human reproductive behaviour and sexual selection is entirely defined by evolutionary adaptiveness, especially as social change leads to further emphasis on free will in reproductive behaviour.
Furthermore, evolutionary theory's approach to sexual selection and reproductive behaviour is too reductionist, removing human relationships from their social and cultural context to focus only on biological metrics of fertility and genetic fitness. Many factors other than physical appearance and resource acquisition play a role in sexual selection, such as the social demographic variables, similarities of attitudes and beliefs, and the complementarity of emotional needs proposed by Kerkhoff and Davis' filter theory. To reduce human reproductive behaviour down to basic evolutionary traits is an oversimplification of an incredibly complex behaviour system.
Tuesday 12 January 2016
Evolutionary explanations for sex differences in parental investment
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Parental investment is the dedication of resources, time, and effort towards a child that increases its chance of survival and reproduction, at the expense of parents' ability to invest in other children.
Parental Investment Theory suggests that the differences between males and females in the amount of parental investment are a result of the sex differences in parental certainty. Due to giving birth to it, a female will always have parental certainty over their child, and will therefore be willing to invest more time and resources into ensuring its survival. Because of this parental certainty, a sexual strategy of choosiness rather than promiscuity is more beneficial for women - ensuring that a mate is of good genetic quality and is able to provide resources for the child. Males do not have parental certainty, so therefore will less willing to invest time and resources when they could unwittingly be raising another man's child. Because of this lack of certainty, a sexual strategy of promiscuity is most adaptive for men - having as many children with as many women as possible to increase the chance of having a legitimate child survive.
A female's parental investment in each reproduction is much larger. She produces relatively few eggs, is fertile for much less time than men, and bears the cost of pregnancy and childbirth. Her best strategy is to carry out behaviours that increase the survival chance of her children. Males have much lower parental investment, and can have many more children than women - they have a much larger fertility window and produce far more sperm than women produce eggs, and the only really limiting factor is access to willing females. This makes promiscuity a much more effective reproductive strategy.
Gross and Shine (1981) provide supporting evidence for Parental Investment Theory (PIT) by finding that in other species, the sex with parental certainty is most likely to be the primary caregiver. In species with internal fertilisation, such as humans, parental care is carried out by the females in 86% of cases. In species with external fertilisation, where the male has parental certainty rather than the female, parental care is carried out by the male in 70% of cases. The "deserter" parent doesn't have parental certainty, so they invest less parental care. However, the fact that there wasn't an 100% correlation suggests that factors other than fertilisation must affect parental investment.
Buss (1993) found further supporting evidence for PIT in a study that found that males show a greater stress response when imagining their partners being sexually unfaithful, whereas females show a greater stress response when imagining their partners being emotionally unfaithful. According to PIT, males will show more jealousy when their partners are sexually unfaithful as this decreases their parental certainty, and females will show more jealousy when their partners are emotionally unfaithful, as this puts them at risk of losing the resources their partner provides, and this study supports those hypotheses.
(Supporting evidence for differences in parental investment come from Clark and Hatfield's 1989 study into attitudes towards casual sex, where gender differences in attitude were explained by differences in optimal reproductive strategy and parental investment. Being unable to ensure parental certainty, men's optimal sexual strategy is promiscuity, and this was reflect in the study's results - when offered casual sex with a stranger, all women in the study declined, whereas 75% of men accepted - compared to only 69% agreeing to go back to the woman's house!)
Clark and Hatfield's study uses a potentially biased sample, approaching only university students in their research. Certain aspects of university culture make casual sex more acceptable and encouraged than in other sectors of society, so their results cannot necessarily apply to the general population.
The study above can be used as AO2 for both parental investment and reproductive behaviour questions - just make sure you specifically apply it to the question and make it clear how it links to either differences in behaviour or investment depending on the question.
A key issue with studies into promiscuity is that cultural factors could have affected the validity of the results. There is more of a social stigma to promiscuity in women than in men, so female participants in Clark and Hatfield's study could have been less likely to accept the offer of casual sex than men because of the social taboo, rather than because of evolutionary differences in parental investment.
Cultural bias is also an issue here when trying to apply results globally - the reported disparity in sexual strategies could be more a product of cultural norms than evolutionary differences in parental investment, and therefore would not apply cross-culturally. Casual sex and promiscuity is much more acceptable in some cultures than others - it is imposing an etic to generalise Clark and Hatfield's results from an American study to less tolerant countries like Saudi Arabia.
The concept of parental certainty affecting parental investment is supported by a study by Nettle (2007), finding maternal grandparents had more contact with children than paternal grandparents, and offered more financial support and care for their grandchildren. This is what evolutionary theory would suggest - as only maternal grandparents can be certain of their genetic link to the child. However, this study fails to account for social norms - it's a cultural expectation that maternal grandparents will have a closer relationship to their grandchildren than paternal ones will, and contribute more.
The evolutionary approach is overly deterministic, stating that we choose mates to reproduce, and that females select a mate for resource provision, whereas males want to spread their genes as widely as possible, investing less in a single child than females do, but having more children overall. There are obvious counter-examples where free will overrides the evolutionary past - couples where the man is younger than the woman, heterosexual couples without children, homosexual couples, stepparents who love and care for their stepchildren. It is too deterministic to suggest that human reproductive behaviour and parental investment is entirely defined by evolutionary adaptiveness, especially as social change leads to further emphasis on free will in mating and parenting.
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Parental investment is the dedication of resources, time, and effort towards a child that increases its chance of survival and reproduction, at the expense of parents' ability to invest in other children.
Parental Investment Theory suggests that the differences between males and females in the amount of parental investment are a result of the sex differences in parental certainty. Due to giving birth to it, a female will always have parental certainty over their child, and will therefore be willing to invest more time and resources into ensuring its survival. Because of this parental certainty, a sexual strategy of choosiness rather than promiscuity is more beneficial for women - ensuring that a mate is of good genetic quality and is able to provide resources for the child. Males do not have parental certainty, so therefore will less willing to invest time and resources when they could unwittingly be raising another man's child. Because of this lack of certainty, a sexual strategy of promiscuity is most adaptive for men - having as many children with as many women as possible to increase the chance of having a legitimate child survive.
A female's parental investment in each reproduction is much larger. She produces relatively few eggs, is fertile for much less time than men, and bears the cost of pregnancy and childbirth. Her best strategy is to carry out behaviours that increase the survival chance of her children. Males have much lower parental investment, and can have many more children than women - they have a much larger fertility window and produce far more sperm than women produce eggs, and the only really limiting factor is access to willing females. This makes promiscuity a much more effective reproductive strategy.
Gross and Shine (1981) provide supporting evidence for Parental Investment Theory (PIT) by finding that in other species, the sex with parental certainty is most likely to be the primary caregiver. In species with internal fertilisation, such as humans, parental care is carried out by the females in 86% of cases. In species with external fertilisation, where the male has parental certainty rather than the female, parental care is carried out by the male in 70% of cases. The "deserter" parent doesn't have parental certainty, so they invest less parental care. However, the fact that there wasn't an 100% correlation suggests that factors other than fertilisation must affect parental investment.
Buss (1993) found further supporting evidence for PIT in a study that found that males show a greater stress response when imagining their partners being sexually unfaithful, whereas females show a greater stress response when imagining their partners being emotionally unfaithful. According to PIT, males will show more jealousy when their partners are sexually unfaithful as this decreases their parental certainty, and females will show more jealousy when their partners are emotionally unfaithful, as this puts them at risk of losing the resources their partner provides, and this study supports those hypotheses.
(Supporting evidence for differences in parental investment come from Clark and Hatfield's 1989 study into attitudes towards casual sex, where gender differences in attitude were explained by differences in optimal reproductive strategy and parental investment. Being unable to ensure parental certainty, men's optimal sexual strategy is promiscuity, and this was reflect in the study's results - when offered casual sex with a stranger, all women in the study declined, whereas 75% of men accepted - compared to only 69% agreeing to go back to the woman's house!)
Clark and Hatfield's study uses a potentially biased sample, approaching only university students in their research. Certain aspects of university culture make casual sex more acceptable and encouraged than in other sectors of society, so their results cannot necessarily apply to the general population.
The study above can be used as AO2 for both parental investment and reproductive behaviour questions - just make sure you specifically apply it to the question and make it clear how it links to either differences in behaviour or investment depending on the question.
A key issue with studies into promiscuity is that cultural factors could have affected the validity of the results. There is more of a social stigma to promiscuity in women than in men, so female participants in Clark and Hatfield's study could have been less likely to accept the offer of casual sex than men because of the social taboo, rather than because of evolutionary differences in parental investment.
Cultural bias is also an issue here when trying to apply results globally - the reported disparity in sexual strategies could be more a product of cultural norms than evolutionary differences in parental investment, and therefore would not apply cross-culturally. Casual sex and promiscuity is much more acceptable in some cultures than others - it is imposing an etic to generalise Clark and Hatfield's results from an American study to less tolerant countries like Saudi Arabia.
The concept of parental certainty affecting parental investment is supported by a study by Nettle (2007), finding maternal grandparents had more contact with children than paternal grandparents, and offered more financial support and care for their grandchildren. This is what evolutionary theory would suggest - as only maternal grandparents can be certain of their genetic link to the child. However, this study fails to account for social norms - it's a cultural expectation that maternal grandparents will have a closer relationship to their grandchildren than paternal ones will, and contribute more.
The evolutionary approach is overly deterministic, stating that we choose mates to reproduce, and that females select a mate for resource provision, whereas males want to spread their genes as widely as possible, investing less in a single child than females do, but having more children overall. There are obvious counter-examples where free will overrides the evolutionary past - couples where the man is younger than the woman, heterosexual couples without children, homosexual couples, stepparents who love and care for their stepchildren. It is too deterministic to suggest that human reproductive behaviour and parental investment is entirely defined by evolutionary adaptiveness, especially as social change leads to further emphasis on free will in mating and parenting.
Wednesday 6 January 2016
The use of public health interventions in reducing addictive behaviour
Considering merging clinical and public health interventions into a single post once I've covered all the clinical interventions content, I'll see how much there is and if it's not too much then I'll redo this post to include them both. Another likely candidate for application questions, so make sure you know how to apply these in order to access top AO2 marks!
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
In 2013, Public Health England launched this campaign to remind smokers of the physical damage caused by tobacco smoking. Through television, radio and online advertising, the campaign dramatised the harms of smoking by showing how it affects the whole of the body, from the heart to the lungs, blood and brain. It aimed to increase awareness by highlighting the immediate damage done by every cigarette, focusing on the toxins in cigarette smoke polluting the blood and increasing the chance of heart attacks and strokes.
The campaign achieved a national awareness of 87%, with 84% of smokers who saw the campaign reporting that it was aimed at people like them. The messages cut through similarly well, with 68% of people agreeing that "these adverts made me think that every cigarette is harmful", 87% agreeing that "cigarettes cause heart attacks and strokes", and 30% taking action to quit smoking, by either ordering a Quit Kit, stopping smoking, or talking about it with family or friends.
Also known as "Bad Betty", this campaign by the Senet Group used television, radio, digital press and gambling shop window posters to highlight the warning signs of problem gambling and the benefits of staying in control, using the slogan: "When the fun stops, stop!" Aiming to prevent problem gambling, the campaign advised gamblers to only bet what they can afford, not gamble when they're angry, never chase losses, and not put gambling before their friends.
The campaign resulted in high levels of awareness, with over 1/3 of gamblers who recall the campaign saying it made them approach their gambling more responsibly, and 1/6th of people who recall the campaign being prompted to "warn other people about their gambling habits.", suggesting that it also influenced public perceptions of gambling and made people more aware of the risks. The campaign achieved an awareness of 34% in the general population, a significant percentage usually only achieved with double the levels of funding that Gamble Aware was granted.
The phrases "when the fun stops, stop" and "Bad Betty" were recited by millions following the campaign, and occupied a significant place in the consciousness of gamblers that prompted them to approach their habit with more caution.
The 2007 public smoking ban prohibited smoking cigarettes in indoor workplaces, indoor public places, and on public transport. These laws were later amended in 2015 to prohibit smoking in a vehicle carrying children, punishable by on-the-spot fines. These law changes have resulted in significant health benefits, as well as changes in behaviour and attitudes towards smoking.
In the year following the introduction of the smokefree laws, there was a 2.4% reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks in England, saving the NHS £8.4 million in a single year. In the same year, there was a 12.3% reduction in hospital admissions for childhood asthma cases, equivalent to 6800 admissions over the next 3 years.
The ban proved to be successful and popular, even among smokers. A YouGov survey commissioned by ASH in 2014 found that 82% of adults in the UK support the smokefree laws, including 54% of smokers.
In addition to support for the smokefree laws, people are now less willing to expose themselves to smoke in private dwellings. In 2009, 78% responders to an ASH YouGov survey did not allow smoking anywhere in their home or in enclosed areas on their property, and this had increased to 86% of respondents by 2014, suggesting that the law changes were responsible for a decrease in the social acceptability of smoking, leading to it being a less desirable behaviour among the public.
Since April 2012, it has been illegal to display tobacco products at the point of sale (POS) in large shops, and since 2015 it has been illegal to display them at any point of public sale. This was inspired by the idea that openly displaying tobacco products in shops contributed to the normalising of smoking by society, and the hope that banning this display would reduce the social acceptability of smoking.
Research shows that POS display has a direct impact on young people smoking. In 2006, 46% of UK teenagers were aware of tobacco display at POS, and those who admitted an intention to start smoking were more likely to recall brands seen at POS.
The Cochrane systematic review (2011) found that exposure to tobacco advertising and promotion, including POS displays, increases the likelihood that adolescents will develop a smoking addiction, justifying the hypothesis that POS bans decrease the prevalence of smoking.
An evaluation of the POS ban in Ireland found that it had an immediate impact on young peoples' attitudes towards smoking. The proportion of young people believing that more than 1/5th of their age group smoked decreased by 16%, and 38% of teenagers thought the law would make it easier for children not to smoke, suggesting that the bans had significant effects on the public perception of smoking and helped to de-normalise it.
A study by Cancer Research UK in 2010, just after the laws had been passed, found 73% support for the removal of POS displays, whereas a larger poll of British adults found 64% support. These results both suggest that the public is in favour of banning these displays as a way of reducing young peoples' exposure to tobacco advertising.
There are methodological issues in attempting to judge the effectiveness of public health campaigns. When multiple public health measures (e.g. Fit for Life, 5-a-day) are introduced within a short period of time, it is difficult to establish cause and effect as we cannot pin down which campaigns are responsible for specific changes in public behaviour, perceptions of smoking and gambling, and overall changes in health. For example, the 2.4% reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks may not necessarily be due to the introduction of the public smoking ban, but rather due to a greater overall focus on a healthy lifestyle in the media.
We don't know how closely peoples' reported attitude changes, awareness of addiction, or planned changes in behaviour reflect their actual actions - in responses judging the effectiveness of the Toxic Cycle campaign, people could have overestimated their own likelihood of quitting, or simply lied and reported stopping smoking for the purpose of giving a socially acceptable survey answer. Many people accessed Smokefree and NHS Stop Smoking services to attempt to quit, but this does not necessarily mean that the system was effective at helping them quit rather than just providing an incentive (30% took actions such as ordering a Quit Kit, but there is no figure for how many successfully stopped smoking.)
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
The Toxic Cycle Campaign
In 2013, Public Health England launched this campaign to remind smokers of the physical damage caused by tobacco smoking. Through television, radio and online advertising, the campaign dramatised the harms of smoking by showing how it affects the whole of the body, from the heart to the lungs, blood and brain. It aimed to increase awareness by highlighting the immediate damage done by every cigarette, focusing on the toxins in cigarette smoke polluting the blood and increasing the chance of heart attacks and strokes.
The campaign used
both ‘harm’ and ‘hope’ messaging, by showing the harm caused by smoking to
encourage smokers to quit, and, at the same time, providing a way for them to
do so in the form of support from Smokefree. The advertising encouraged smokers
to go online to find their way out of smoking, and order free support in the
form of the Quit Kit, Smokefree app, text and emails. Partnership with
pharmacies was a key part of the campaign strategy, and over 75% of pharmacies
across England were provided with a new product – ‘Quit Cards’, to act as a conversation starter to help them engage with smokers and promote the full range of
Smokefree products to help them quit.
The campaign achieved a national awareness of 87%, with 84% of smokers who saw the campaign reporting that it was aimed at people like them. The messages cut through similarly well, with 68% of people agreeing that "these adverts made me think that every cigarette is harmful", 87% agreeing that "cigarettes cause heart attacks and strokes", and 30% taking action to quit smoking, by either ordering a Quit Kit, stopping smoking, or talking about it with family or friends.
During the campaign, approximately 172'000 Smokefree products were ordered, including 84'000 Quit Kits and 50'000 downloads of the Smokefree mobile app. 420'000 Quit Cards were distributed by pharmacies across England.
These figures suggest that the public health campaign was a success, and that it motivated a significant number of people to try and quit smoking, as well as raise awareness of the harmful effects of tobacco smoke on the body.
The Gamble Aware Campaign
Also known as "Bad Betty", this campaign by the Senet Group used television, radio, digital press and gambling shop window posters to highlight the warning signs of problem gambling and the benefits of staying in control, using the slogan: "When the fun stops, stop!" Aiming to prevent problem gambling, the campaign advised gamblers to only bet what they can afford, not gamble when they're angry, never chase losses, and not put gambling before their friends.
The campaign resulted in high levels of awareness, with over 1/3 of gamblers who recall the campaign saying it made them approach their gambling more responsibly, and 1/6th of people who recall the campaign being prompted to "warn other people about their gambling habits.", suggesting that it also influenced public perceptions of gambling and made people more aware of the risks. The campaign achieved an awareness of 34% in the general population, a significant percentage usually only achieved with double the levels of funding that Gamble Aware was granted.
The phrases "when the fun stops, stop" and "Bad Betty" were recited by millions following the campaign, and occupied a significant place in the consciousness of gamblers that prompted them to approach their habit with more caution.
Changes to the UK smoking laws
The 2007 public smoking ban prohibited smoking cigarettes in indoor workplaces, indoor public places, and on public transport. These laws were later amended in 2015 to prohibit smoking in a vehicle carrying children, punishable by on-the-spot fines. These law changes have resulted in significant health benefits, as well as changes in behaviour and attitudes towards smoking.
In the year following the introduction of the smokefree laws, there was a 2.4% reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks in England, saving the NHS £8.4 million in a single year. In the same year, there was a 12.3% reduction in hospital admissions for childhood asthma cases, equivalent to 6800 admissions over the next 3 years.
The ban proved to be successful and popular, even among smokers. A YouGov survey commissioned by ASH in 2014 found that 82% of adults in the UK support the smokefree laws, including 54% of smokers.
In addition to support for the smokefree laws, people are now less willing to expose themselves to smoke in private dwellings. In 2009, 78% responders to an ASH YouGov survey did not allow smoking anywhere in their home or in enclosed areas on their property, and this had increased to 86% of respondents by 2014, suggesting that the law changes were responsible for a decrease in the social acceptability of smoking, leading to it being a less desirable behaviour among the public.
Since April 2012, it has been illegal to display tobacco products at the point of sale (POS) in large shops, and since 2015 it has been illegal to display them at any point of public sale. This was inspired by the idea that openly displaying tobacco products in shops contributed to the normalising of smoking by society, and the hope that banning this display would reduce the social acceptability of smoking.
Research shows that POS display has a direct impact on young people smoking. In 2006, 46% of UK teenagers were aware of tobacco display at POS, and those who admitted an intention to start smoking were more likely to recall brands seen at POS.
The Cochrane systematic review (2011) found that exposure to tobacco advertising and promotion, including POS displays, increases the likelihood that adolescents will develop a smoking addiction, justifying the hypothesis that POS bans decrease the prevalence of smoking.
An evaluation of the POS ban in Ireland found that it had an immediate impact on young peoples' attitudes towards smoking. The proportion of young people believing that more than 1/5th of their age group smoked decreased by 16%, and 38% of teenagers thought the law would make it easier for children not to smoke, suggesting that the bans had significant effects on the public perception of smoking and helped to de-normalise it.
A study by Cancer Research UK in 2010, just after the laws had been passed, found 73% support for the removal of POS displays, whereas a larger poll of British adults found 64% support. These results both suggest that the public is in favour of banning these displays as a way of reducing young peoples' exposure to tobacco advertising.
Issues with public health interventions
There are methodological issues in attempting to judge the effectiveness of public health campaigns. When multiple public health measures (e.g. Fit for Life, 5-a-day) are introduced within a short period of time, it is difficult to establish cause and effect as we cannot pin down which campaigns are responsible for specific changes in public behaviour, perceptions of smoking and gambling, and overall changes in health. For example, the 2.4% reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks may not necessarily be due to the introduction of the public smoking ban, but rather due to a greater overall focus on a healthy lifestyle in the media.
We don't know how closely peoples' reported attitude changes, awareness of addiction, or planned changes in behaviour reflect their actual actions - in responses judging the effectiveness of the Toxic Cycle campaign, people could have overestimated their own likelihood of quitting, or simply lied and reported stopping smoking for the purpose of giving a socially acceptable survey answer. Many people accessed Smokefree and NHS Stop Smoking services to attempt to quit, but this does not necessarily mean that the system was effective at helping them quit rather than just providing an incentive (30% took actions such as ordering a Quit Kit, but there is no figure for how many successfully stopped smoking.)
Tuesday 5 January 2016
Biological explanations of addiction
Thought I'd make a start on the addiction topic! AO2 in this can come from two styles of question - the first being evaluation (of theories or studies), the second being application. Questions can give a specific scenario and ask you to apply your knowledge to the situation - make sure you specifically reference the situation they describe in order to gain AO2 credit for application. They can also ask about either smoking or gambling in specific detail - so make sure to learn points relating to both addictions rather than just one or the other. You can also be asked about addiction, maintenance and relapse as separate elements of addiction - so make sure you can specifically apply theory to each of the three stages!
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Anthropomorphism is an issue with Pierzchala's study, as research carried out on rats cannot necessarily have its results accurately applied to humans. The physiological differences between rats and humans could mean that the biological mechanisms that influence addiction such as the EOS function differently too.
Research into the endogenous opioid system can only explain maintenance and relapse of addictive behaviour (see Karras + Kane - EOS suppression reduced cravings.) It cannot explain initiation of an addictive behaviour, as one must take a drug first in order to know that it has pleasurable effects stemming from opioid release - we don't know that something will be pleasurable until we try it.
Neuroadaptation is the process whereby the body compensates for the presence of a chemical in the body so that it can continue to function normally. As a person uses a drug more regularly, the body will become used to the presence of the substance and adapt its normal responses accordingly, meaning somebody develops tolerance to a drug, and needs more of the substance to give a desired effect. Tolerance leads to dependence and addiction - significant changes occur in the brain to support the constant presence of drugs in the body, and a person will feel withdrawal symptoms when the drug is removed from their system. Withdrawal symptoms occur because the body has adapted to the drug's presence, and now requires it in order to maintain normal functioning.
With nicotine, withdrawal symptoms that can lead to relapse include anger, anxiety, depression, insomnia, weight gain and an inability to concentrate.
While neuroadaptation can explain the maintenance and relapse of addiction, with the body adjusting to a constant level of the drug in its system and suffering withdrawal when it is removed, it cannot explain addiction.
Only really bring up neuroadaptation if the question asks about maintenance or withdrawal, as there really isn't anything in this theory that explains initiation. There isn't much AO2 here - so use it sparingly. It's very useful for application questions, though.
Biological explanations of addiction can be considered overly reductionist, ignoring environmental factors such as the role of the peer group, and cognitive processes such as self-medication in the process of addiction. Social factors such as the peer group are very important in the initiation of addiction - most addicts are first exposed to the drug through a member of their peer groups, and many people take a drug only in a specific social scenario.
Biological explanations of addiction are also overly deterministic, suggesting that people are completely controlled by their neurological systems such as the DRS and the EOS, as well as inherited genetic predispositions. Not everyone with a thrill-seeking personality due to genetics goes on to develop an addiction, and nor does everyone with raised dopamine levels - free will must play a powerful part in addiction formation.
Generally, genes best explain initiation, EOS and DRS best explain maintenance, and neurodaptation/withdrawal best explain relapse.
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Dopamine Reward System (DRS)
According to this hypothesis, when the brain experiences pleasure dopamine is released from the mesolimbic pathway in the midbrain. The original purpose of this was to promote behaviours that aided survival and reproduction, such as eating, drinking, and sex. However, the use of certain drugs such as alcohol or nicotine, or events such as winning money when gambling, can also trigger mesolimbic dopamine release, as well as a glutamate release from the limbic system, stimulating areas of the prefrontal cortex responsible for memory - creating a memory of pleasurable feelings.
Continued drug use has been shown by Volkow et al (1999) to reduce the sensitivity and activity of the D2 dopamine receptors in the brain's reward system. This can explain the maintenance and progression of an addictive behaviour - it is suggested that this leads people to taking more or "harder" drugs in order to compensate for their decreased sensitivity.
Pontieri et al (1996) found supporting evidence for the role of the DRS in addiction. They found that nicotine produces its pharmacological effects through the activation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). The activation of these receptors then increases dopamine levels, causing pleasurable feelings.
The Parkinson’s Disease Society estimates that 14% of patients who take drugs such as Pergolide, which increase dopamine activity, will develop compulsive behaviours such as gambling. (Breen 2008) Similarly, Grosset (2009) found that dopamine agonists used to treat Parkinson’s disease turned 10% of patients in to compulsive gamblers. This suggests that dopamine levels can play a role in the initiation of addictive behaviour - this is far higher than in the general population, implying that rather than just being released by addictive behaviours, dopamine plays a role in triggering these behaviours in the first place. Supporting this, Kim & Grant (2001) found that administering Naltrexone, a dopamine antagonist, was successful in reducing compulsions to gamble. These results also help explain initiation of addictive behaviour - drug induced deviations from normal drug levels can stimulate or kill urges to initiate an addictive behaviour.
Cocaine inhibits the action of a protein called DAT (which controls the removal of excess dopamine from the junctions between nerve cells in the brain). This leads to nerve cells being overloaded with dopamine, which contributes to the "high" associated with taking cocaine - supporting the hypothesis that behaviours that cause a dopamine surge will be registered as "pleasurable" and become addictive.
However, Volkow et al (1997) found that while drugs increased dopamine activity the limbic systems of addicted participants, they also raised dopamine levels in non-addicted controls to an even greater degree without them becoming addicted, suggesting that raised dopamine levels cannot entirely explain addiction, and it is overly reductionist to suggest this - there must be other factors that cause somebody to develop a dependence after just taking the drug.
Prefrontal Cortex
The prefrontal cortex (PFC) deals with rational decision-making and social behaviour. It also plays a role in regulating the emotionally-driven and impulsive limbic system. Raised dopamine levels suppress the PFC, leading to it being unable to regulate the more primitive amygdala, leading to risk-taking and impulsive behaviour such as drug-taking.
Research has found a grey matter reduction in the frontal lobes in addicts to heroin, cocaine and alcohol, damaging "synaptic plasticity" which then leads to a loss of PFC function. This explains maintenance of addiction - drug addiction damages our own ability to regulate our addictive behaviours, making us less likely to be able to quit.
However, it is difficult to establish cause and effect here - an alternate explanation is that a reduction in PFC activity pre-dates addiction, and is actually responsible for the loss of control and impulsive behaviours such as gambling and drug-taking, rather than drug-taking causing PFC damage.
Frontal lobe volume loss has been found in cocaine addicts (Franklin et al 2002), alcoholics (Jernigan et al (1991) and heroin addicts (Liu 1998), suggesting that drugs which increase dopamine levels cause damage to the PFC's frontal lobes.
Endogenous Opioid System
The opioid system controls pain, reward and addictive behaviours. Opioid receptors in the brain are activated by a family of endogenous peptides such as enkephalins and endorphins, released by neurons that are stimulated by addictive behaviours such as gambling and smoking - the activation of this system causes a pleasure response similar to that of the mesolimbic pathway's dopamine reward circuit.
Herz (1997) found that endogenous opioids play a key role in the addictive properties of alcohol, as results showed that opioid antagonists (reducing EOS activity) reduce both pleasure from and urge to drink alcohol.
Karras and Kane (1980) found that tobacco smoking and cravings are reduced in humans when they are given naloxone, a narcotic opioid antagonist. The resulting suppression of the EOS resulted in less urge to carry out an addictive behaviour and fewer withdrawal symptoms (cravings), suggesting that the EOS has a role in both the formation and relapse of addictive behaviour.
Herz (1997) found that endogenous opioids play a key role in the addictive properties of alcohol, as results showed that opioid antagonists (reducing EOS activity) reduce both pleasure from and urge to drink alcohol.
Karras and Kane (1980) found that tobacco smoking and cravings are reduced in humans when they are given naloxone, a narcotic opioid antagonist. The resulting suppression of the EOS resulted in less urge to carry out an addictive behaviour and fewer withdrawal symptoms (cravings), suggesting that the EOS has a role in both the formation and relapse of addictive behaviour.
Pierzchala et al. (1987) showed that repeated short-term administration of small doses of nicotine to male rats produced significant increases in enkephalin, supporting the central idea of the EOS playing a role in the pleasurable feelings from addictive drugs and behaviours.
Anthropomorphism is an issue with Pierzchala's study, as research carried out on rats cannot necessarily have its results accurately applied to humans. The physiological differences between rats and humans could mean that the biological mechanisms that influence addiction such as the EOS function differently too.
Research into the endogenous opioid system can only explain maintenance and relapse of addictive behaviour (see Karras + Kane - EOS suppression reduced cravings.) It cannot explain initiation of an addictive behaviour, as one must take a drug first in order to know that it has pleasurable effects stemming from opioid release - we don't know that something will be pleasurable until we try it.
Genes
There are certain genes or combinations of genes that have been implicated in increasing or decreasing the likelihood that an individual will engage in addictive behaviours. There is also evidence suggesting that the concordance for many addictions rises as people become more genetically similar.
Breen (2006) identified a variant of a gene responsible for inhibiting the production of DAT, which controls dopamine levels. It was found that those who had 2 copies of the variant gene were 50% more likely to become addicted to cocaine, suggesting that genetics can play a role in addiction.
Studies have identified the presence of the gene SLC6A3-9 as reducing the risk of starting smoking, pushing back the age of beginning, and making quitting more likely to succeed - also causing a lower dopamine release from nicotine. This gene reduces the risk of "thrill-seeking" behaviour such as smoking, gambling and drug-taking.
Lerman (1999) compared the DNA of non-smokers and chronic smokers, and found that non-smokers were more likely to have the SLC6A3-9 gene present, and smokers with the gene were less likely to have started below age 16, suggesting that the gene's absence powerfully influences the risk of nicotine addiction.
Hamer (1999) studied smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers. Participants with the SLC6A3-9 gene scored 1 point lower in the "novelty seeking" index and were rated as less impulsive, deriving less of a "thrill" from nicotine.
These studies that identify SLC6A3-9 absence as a genetic risk factor can certainly help explain initiation of addiction. The absence of this gene makes people more likely to indulge in thrill-seeking and impulsive behaviours such as trying smoking or drugs for the first time, starting up a habit that can quickly develop into addiction.
Shields (1962) investigated 42 pairs of monozygotic twins raised apart, to control for environmental factors in their upbringing, and found a 79% concordance rate for smoking addictions. Due to being able to control for environmental factors such as peer groups that could have played a role in addiction initiation, this is strong supporting evidence for the role of genes providing an inherent susceptibility to nicotine addiction.
Hamer (1999) studied smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers. Participants with the SLC6A3-9 gene scored 1 point lower in the "novelty seeking" index and were rated as less impulsive, deriving less of a "thrill" from nicotine.
These studies that identify SLC6A3-9 absence as a genetic risk factor can certainly help explain initiation of addiction. The absence of this gene makes people more likely to indulge in thrill-seeking and impulsive behaviours such as trying smoking or drugs for the first time, starting up a habit that can quickly develop into addiction.
Shields (1962) investigated 42 pairs of monozygotic twins raised apart, to control for environmental factors in their upbringing, and found a 79% concordance rate for smoking addictions. Due to being able to control for environmental factors such as peer groups that could have played a role in addiction initiation, this is strong supporting evidence for the role of genes providing an inherent susceptibility to nicotine addiction.
Neuroadaptation
Neuroadaptation is the process whereby the body compensates for the presence of a chemical in the body so that it can continue to function normally. As a person uses a drug more regularly, the body will become used to the presence of the substance and adapt its normal responses accordingly, meaning somebody develops tolerance to a drug, and needs more of the substance to give a desired effect. Tolerance leads to dependence and addiction - significant changes occur in the brain to support the constant presence of drugs in the body, and a person will feel withdrawal symptoms when the drug is removed from their system. Withdrawal symptoms occur because the body has adapted to the drug's presence, and now requires it in order to maintain normal functioning.
While neuroadaptation can explain the maintenance and relapse of addiction, with the body adjusting to a constant level of the drug in its system and suffering withdrawal when it is removed, it cannot explain addiction.
Only really bring up neuroadaptation if the question asks about maintenance or withdrawal, as there really isn't anything in this theory that explains initiation. There isn't much AO2 here - so use it sparingly. It's very useful for application questions, though.
Overall
Biological explanations of addiction can be considered overly reductionist, ignoring environmental factors such as the role of the peer group, and cognitive processes such as self-medication in the process of addiction. Social factors such as the peer group are very important in the initiation of addiction - most addicts are first exposed to the drug through a member of their peer groups, and many people take a drug only in a specific social scenario.
Biological explanations of addiction are also overly deterministic, suggesting that people are completely controlled by their neurological systems such as the DRS and the EOS, as well as inherited genetic predispositions. Not everyone with a thrill-seeking personality due to genetics goes on to develop an addiction, and nor does everyone with raised dopamine levels - free will must play a powerful part in addiction formation.
Generally, genes best explain initiation, EOS and DRS best explain maintenance, and neurodaptation/withdrawal best explain relapse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)