Vulnerability factors involved in addiction.

1. Vulnerability factors involved in addiction. Attribution Self esteem Social context

2. Self esteem. One friend one foe. ☺ Jessor (1987) reports low self esteem is a predictor of becoming involved in addiction. x Van Hasselt et al (1993) suggested the opposite, he found adolescent substance abusers were more depressed than their non abuse counterparts but no difference with measures of self esteem!!

3. So how important a factor is self esteem? • According to Newcomb et al (1986) self esteem ranked as 10th in list of importance behind other factors such as: • General deviance. • Early alcohol use. • Poor academic achievement. • Sensation seeking. • Peer drug use. • So what does this mean?

4. So what does this suggest? • There is a possible argument for an addictive personality! • The previous slides have looked at what we commonly call individual differences, therefore it would be logical to suggest maybe certain personality traits maybe linked to addictive behaviour!!

5. Addictive personality? • Nathan (1988)- Certain individuals are more prone to addiction than others. • The suggestion is that there are pre-existing character defects in individuals-thus some will inevitably become addicted to said behaviour • Problem:. How can one untangle the effects of personality on addiction vs. the effects of addiction on personality (Teeson et al 2002)

6. Common traits found in addiction may not be specific to addiction. Some traits found in addicts may well be common but that does not mean they are in addicts alone….many people have low self esteem..but they are not addicts…go figure!! If addictive personality exists what are the standards of proof? Signs/symptoms? Discriminative Related to addictive behaviour on basis of empirical rather than clinical evidence. What evidence do we have of addictive personality? NO personality trait guarantees addiction. Basically, there is no evidence for an addictive personality rather others opinions. So let’s weigh this argument up! Approaches + Issues + Debates = Depth & Breadth= Higher marks!!

7. What about attribution?….I hear you call. • How you attribute your behaviour to something/someone to make sense of it ! • E.G. “I cant help it Dave made me have that last pint” • Not his fault...he was not in control of his own actions. • “Addiction as a label can promote irresponsibility, learned helplessness and passivity” (Preyde & Adams 2008)

8. So it is an important factor? • Well….Davies (1996) argued that in fact the explanation only leads people to make excuses for their actions. He suggests people make different attributions for the same event in differentcontexts. • E.g. heroin users reported different attributions for their own drug use from those reported to someone whose drug use was unknown to them. • Q: WHY? • A: Because different attributions serve to protectour self esteem and self concept (Schlenker et al ,1990) • See key research sheet for: • Davies 1996-Attributional stages of addiction.

9. There is good evidence on reliability of addiction attributions. Davies illustrated good reliability of his models. The addiction attributions only based upon small numbers. The sample size only reached 20 people. Attribution models needs further testing. Very theoretical model should be tested at different stages in different samples of substance users and in different settings. There are doubts about validity. Davies did not provide critical information regarding the attribution stages and how they corresponded with the temporal progression of addiction in his interviewees. There is evidence to refute his claim on irreversibility of movement between stages e.g.Diclemente, Prochaska, Norcross (1994) So let’s weigh this argument up #2 Approaches + Issues + Debates = Depth & Breadth= Higher marks!!

10. Townsend (1993) Cigarette consumption & retail price in UK When prices go up sales go down and vice versa. Townsend (1993) Regular smoking 15 yr old boys increased from 20-25% & 16-19 yr old girls from 28-32%. This suggests a connection between price & consumption, governments who want to reduce smoking know what they should do!!!!! Volberg (1994) Discovered 5 states with a pathological prevalence of gambling after a increase in gambling accessibility. The gambling problem appeared proportional to the length of time elapsed since new gambling opportunities had been available to the public. National research Council (1999) NRC: Meta-analysis of studies across different periods of time regarding gambling Findings:increased opportunity to gamble correlated with increase in problem gambling. Ok...the last one I promise!!Social context.

11. The relationship between addiction & accessibility is correlational. Establishing cause and effect is almost impossible with correlation, at best you can establish the strength of the relationship between two variables. Social context can change over time In follow up studies the result to her initial studies stabilised/decreased over time. E.g. Montana & North Dakota saw increases in problem gambling after into of casinos- no public awareness campaigns or services for problem gamblers were introduced. Social context can be affected by third party initiatives. Collins (2007) reviewed evidence and concluded that if a jurisdiction introduces new forms of gambling and does nothing else, it will most likely see an increase in problem gambling. However………….. If appropriate prevention & treatment services are introduced it is likely to decrease numbers of problem gamblers. Ok...I lied this is the last one!! Approaches + Issues + Debates = Depth & Breadth= Higher marks!!

12. Review of learning…you should be able to….. • What types of factor can effect whether someone develops an addiction? • What is attribution theory and how can it be applied to addiction research? • According to Davies (1996) what are the four ways in which attributional style may vary in addicts?