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.

Overall Evaluation

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.

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.