Comparison of Health and Learning explanations for addiction

?

Comparison of Health and Learning explanations for addiction

Similarities

  • EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT - Olds and Milner gives evidence to support the pleasure of the hypothalamus in the brain (BIOCHEMICAL). Meisch et al findings show that rats reinforce themselves with cocaine over food (OPERANT CONDITIONING)
  • DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN IN TERMS OF VALIDITY - brain activity is hard to study in real terms, although scanning is valid to an extent, it takes place in an artificial environment with artificial behaviour. Many factors are involved in behaviour, so studies into learning theories must isolate many variables e.g. Meisch 2001 monitored rats behaviour using a lab experiment with strict controls regarding the doses of cocaine administered.
  • STRENGTHS IN TERMS OF RELIABILITY - animal studies and scanning have consistently indicated the role of receptors and neurotransmitters in substance misuse, these replicable findings show that biological explanations have reliability. Research into SLT (e.g. Bandura) have consistently displayed that what is observed is always imitated by children - these constant findings are shown to be reliable.

Differences

  • HEALTH FOCUSSES ON A NATURE APPROACH - receptors react in specific ways according to brain functioning and this applies to all humans. This approach only explains HOW addiction happens inside the brain - It does not consider social factors that influence addiction e.g. peer groups that motivate individuals to try drugs in the first place.
  • LEARNING FOCUSSES ON A NURTURE APPROACH - substance misuse comes from the individuals environment and from experience, such as experience from family and friends. This approach cannot explain how people are addicted/continue to use after negative experiences with substances, since OPERANT CONDITIONING would suggest that negative reinforcement would put them off.

Overall comparison

- Both explanations have experimental evidence to support their main ideas. - Both explanations are said to be reliable due to experimental evidence. - There is difficulty explaining both approaches in terms of validity.- Differences in nature vs. nurture - both show REDUCTIONISM.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Health and clinical psychology resources »