Critical Evaluation of the Positive and Negative Reinforcement Views of Addiction - Term Paper Example

 Health Psychology “Critical Evaluation Of The Positive And Negative Reinforcement Views Of Addiction” When different perceptions on addiction in the light of theories are discussed, one general question emerges as to why people take drugs and what are the circumstances that lead them to prove the theories of addiction. Two models are concerned in this aspect: The positive reinforcement model The negative reinforcement model Positive Reinforcement Model Carlson claims that addictive drugs are positive reinforcers (Carlson, 1998, p 565). Positive reinforcement can lead to learning a new response, and the maintenance of existing behaviors. It follows that the behaviors associated with taking an addictive drug (i.e. injecting or smoking it) will increase its probability. One way of testing this claim is to examine the reinforcing properties of drugs in animals. Conventional reinforcers support bar pressing in animals, therefore if a drug maintains a response such as bar pressing in an animal, it is a reinforcing stimulus. At one time it was believed that animals could not be made addicted to drugs, but that view is now rejected because technical developments have shown that animals learn new behaviours that cause injection of drugs into their bodies. The most popular contemporary view as to why humans self-administer potentially fatal drugs is that these chemicals activate the reinforcement system in the brain. This system is normally activated by natural reinforcers such as food, water, sex etc. Reinforcers are thought to increase the effect of dopamine at receptors in the mesolimbic system, which originates in the ventral tegmental area and terminates in the nucleus accumbens. Crack cocaine is thought to cause a massive and rapid activation of dopamine receptors in this system. Crack users report that the effects are much more intense than those produced by powerful reinforcers such as ejaculation or orgasm. (Salmon) Negative Reinforcement Model Negative Reinforcement takes place in case where after repetition to certain drugs, withdrawal symptoms appear if the drug is discontinued. Withdrawal symptoms are compensatory reactions that oppose the primary effects of the drug. Therefore they serves as the opposite of the effects of the drug. Lets take an example of heroin: Effects of Heroin Heroin Withdrawal Symptoms Euphoria Dysphoria Constipation Diarrhoea and cramps Relaxation Agitation Withdrawal effects are unpleasant and reduction in these effects would therefore constitute negative reinforcement. (Negative reinforcement is the reinforcement of behavior that terminates an aversive stimulus) Negative reinforcement could explain why addicts continue to take the drug. However some addicts endure withdrawal symptoms (go ‘cold-turkey’) in order to reduce their tolerance so that they can recommence drug intake at a lower dose, which costs less Concentrating on the role of physical withdrawal effects at the expense of other psychological factors that lead to the failure to recognize the addictive properties of cocaine. Cocaine does not produce physical dependency (tolerance and withdrawal symptoms) but it is more addictive than heroin. (Redrawn from Julien, A primer of Drug Action, 7th Ed, Freeman, New York, 1995), shows the changing pattern in the major drug used by patients admitted to drug treatment programs in New York City during the 1980s. Addiction is a lay term, followed by the motivational disregulational behavior, which describes physiological behaviors of the addicted. An interesting review concluded that both orientations positive and negative contribute to our understanding of addiction, and that both structural frameworks can offer predictive value. It depends merely on us as to how we face it and how we name it. Most would agree that overuse of alcohol and other abused drugs are clear examples of addiction. Although other addictive behaviors are occasionally found, this review concentrates on drug addiction for three principal reasons. First, there is a wealth of data on the genetics of drug dependence. Second, many of the key features of addiction have been modeled successfully in animals like monkeys, mice and rats. Finally, drugs can be studied from the framework provided by their pharmacology. Drug receptors are localized in the brain, and drug effects are often local to specific brain regions. (John C. Crabbe) Views or theories of addiction are advanced by different writers according to their perceptions. Orthodox Freudians find, in addiction behavior, a confirmation of Freud’s ideas; Adlerians propound Adlerian theories; behavioristic psychologists who are followers of Skinner find that drug addiction fits neatly into the framework of operant conditioning. Sociologists who are followers of Merton emphasize alienation, anomie, and the double-failure hypothesis. Negative Reinforcement view: Drugs that do not produce strong withdrawal syndromes, such as psycho stimulants, can be highly addictive. Conversely, there are drugs that produce tolerance and withdrawal syndromes but do not support compulsive patterns of use. Positive Reinforcement view: The shortcomings of negative Reinforcement model have emphasized on the behalf of drugs as Positive reinforcers. Positive reinforcers are stimuli that possess the property to increase rate of probability of behaviors preceding their presentation. The question is when people are aware of such kind of negative influence then why they take drugs? Is it so that they are over ridded by a positive behavior or they take drugs because they are habitual drug takers and possess a drug-promotional behavior? Behavioral reinforcement should be kept aloof from the explanation and description of drug addiction. According to an opinion drugs are used extensively because they produce positive affective states such as pain relief and sometimes even pleasure that escorts addiction like sleeping drugs such as xanax and Valium etc. The people on a no reason basis attitude often take these drugs, which suggest that people take drugs because they like to experience the pleasure of taking them, and often without any reason. Some people even consider it as a stress reliever and take them as a supplement. People take drugs because they are aware of their positive influences on them. There is a difference between ‘drug wanting’ and ‘drug liking’. For those who want drugs cannot be counted towards addictive persons but those who like drugs as pleasurable effects and are motivated to take them are the true addictives. The basic view can be summarized in these points: 1. Addictive drugs possess the ability to change the brain with respect to ‘liking of a drug’ as the drug produce long-lasting effects in neural systems. 2. As soon as the brain changes to wards the likening of a drug it starts to activate the motivation factor. 3. The brain then considers itself to be ‘hyper-sensitive’ to drugs and drug related stimuli. 4. Sensitive brain system mediates a reward that is responsible for drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior. (Terry E Robinson & Kent C. Berridge) Common Characteristics Among Addictive Behaviors The person becomes obsessed (constantly thinks of) the object, activity, or substance. They will seek it out, or engage in the behavior even though it is causing harm (physical problems, poor work or study performance, problems with friends, family, fellow workers).  The person will compulsively engage in the activity, that is, do the activity over and over even if he/she does not want to and find it difficult to stop. Upon cessation of the activity, withdrawal symptoms often occur.  These can include irritability, craving, restlessness or depression.  The person does not appear to have control as to when, how long, or how much he or she will continue the behavior (loss of control). (They drink 6 beers when they only wanted one, buy 8 pairs of shoes when they only needed a belt, ate the whole box of cookies, etc). He/she often denies problems resulting from his/her engagement in the behavior, even though others can see the negative effects.  Person hides the behavior after family or close friends have mentioned their concern. (hides food under beds, alcohol bottles in closets, doesn't show spouse credit card bills, etc). Many individuals with addictive behaviors report a blackout for the time they were engaging in the behavior (don't remember how much or what they bought, how much the lost gambling, how many miles they ran on a sore foot, what they did at the party when drinking) Depression is common in individuals with addictive behaviors. That is why it is important to make an appointment with a physician to find out what is going on. Individuals with addictive behaviors often have low self-esteem, feel anxious if the do not have control over their environment, and come from psychologically or physically abusive families. (Ruth C.Engs) “Addiction is a Brain Disease, and It Matters,” Addiction when related to itself gives us a different biological view tested in terms of clinical consequences and can be influenced by the medication, drugs when taken to prevent a cure as well as taken for the sake of self satisfaction, are highlighted in the area of “addiction”. Different consequences are measured in terms of behaviors, which vary among different levels of addictors. Now let us consider another view by Schaler, Schaler distinguishes the behavioral aspects of drug use from a ‘chemical’ point of view. “The chemical effects are not controversial, the controversy is how drugs get into the body”. He focuses on the “behavior of addiction,” not “what drugs do to the brain.” What happens when a person applies a portion of drug to his body is irrelevant to the fact that the person still retains control over whether to take drugs or not. “Addiction means you like to do something,” Thus, the key element of the addiction is the behavioral choice, not the object of the addiction Thus, according to Schaler people can be addicted to all sorts of things, including religion, sex, and eating. In all these things, the behavior is open to choice. “When we view behavior as cause, we dehumanize people,” Schaler quoted, “Human beings are moral agents, choice is what distinguishes us.” (Addiction is a Choice,' Schaler Argues, by Ari Armstrong, October 1, 2003) A regular cocaine user cannot readily stops experiencing cocaine unless and until it is unavailable in the market. He is presumably in the “brain-disease” state, when the use is most compulsive and neuronal disruption seems intense. In such condition of a patient purposeful behavior can occur, for example, the attempt, sometimes violent, to get money or drugs is highly goal-directed. But, at the same time, addicts in such an urgent state will make them ignore the most vital aspects of their lives like mothers if drug addicted would leave their babies screaming, ruin families, careers, and reputations etc, all at the cost of ‘drugs’. Today, most people see both drug and alcohol dependence as examples of chemical dependency. The combination of cognitive and behavioral treatment of addictions examines the thinking and subsequent emotional responses that create compulsive, over learned behavioral reactions. They then set up new modes of thinking that are associated with new behaviors so that addictive behaviors will not be reinforced. The disease model looks at addiction as an illness. (Eric Griffin-Shelley) When it comes to critics, it is evaluated on the basis of clinical observations and and on the basis of tests which are taken in the current era as well as taken in the past, it is revealed that the scientific literature is not changed for decades the definition of addiction. Behavioristic psychologists find that drug addiction fits neatly into the framework of operant conditioning. Trained researchers suggest those biological theories of addiction in which data has served only as an existing ideological position of the investigative controversies. The instability of the various abnormal cases has expressed itself in some form of social or Psychical reaction that marked them off as different from the average stable individual. They were not necessarily invalids or vicious; some of them were useful citizens and remained so; others were so abnormal as to be social problems before their addiction, or the use of narcotics with its attendant social and physical difficulties, had seriously reduced their efficiency. Several theories that model addiction are genetic theories, exposure theories, and adaptation theories. All theories should be viewed and examined under multidimensional aspects for regional and cultural variations. Theories must be able to view and state addiction through the survival and sufferings of human experience. According to the Addictive Inheritance, the genetic theory of addiction separates the genes from the environmental behavior due to which children born by alcoholic parents have a greater rate of alcoholism, which indicates the presence of some kind of genetic predisposition to alcoholic addiction. In African-American communities, alcohol and drugs are considered to be the primary cause of violent behavior, and according to some studies, account for as much as 75% of violent episodes (Marshall, 1989). As the victims of violence crowd our hospital emergency wards with younger patients, the need for a solution becomes urgent. (Hiram E.Fitzgerald, Barry M.Lester -, Barry S.Zuckerman) This lack of agreement among experts causes problems with prevention and treatment approaches for many addictive behaviors. Professionals debate whether total abstinence or controlled and moderate use of a substance (such as alcohol) or activity (such as gambling) is effective. Others debate whether or not a medication is a desirable treatment method. In the area of addiction to food or exercise, of course, few advocate total abstinence as a solution. Though the theories for the causes of addictive behaviors and their treatment are numerous, various types of therapy can help a person who has an addictive behavior. (Ruth C. Engs) The responsibility for usage of alcohol or drugs in the first place can’t be assigned to a freely willing, uncaused agent within the addict who could have simply willed otherwise.  There is no such entity.  Rather, the responsibility, in terms of originating causes, lies in the many factors that shaped the choice, such as genetic predisposition to addiction, the availability of drugs and alcohol, community norms sanctioning substance use, poor role modeling by parents and peers, poor education about the risks of addiction, and lack of sufficiently attractive alternatives. (Addiction, Causality, Victimhood, and Empowerment) References Adams. Psychopathy and Addiction, 3.E.W, Drug Addiction, London Addiction, Causality, Victimhood, and Empowerment: How to Hold Addicts Accountable, Hiram E.Fitzgerald, Barry M.Lester, Barry S.Zuckerman (2000). Children of Addiction.Garland. p: 166 John C. Crabbe. (2002) Genetic Contributions to Addiction. Annual Review of Psychology. p 435. Marc Redfield (2002) High Anxieties: Cultural Studies in Addiction. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. p.119. Marian Pitts (1998) The Psychology of Health: An Introduction. Routledge. London. p 4 Ruth C. Engs Accessed from < http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/hints/addictiveb.html> Salmon Accessed from Sex and Love: Addiction, Treatment, and Recovery. Terry E. Robinson and Kent C. Berridge The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive–sensitization view. Read More