Vulnerability
factors
involved in addiction.
Attribution
Self esteem
Social context
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!!
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?
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!!
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)
So let’s weigh this argument up!






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!!


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.
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.
Approaches + Issues + Debates = Depth &
Breadth= Higher marks!!
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)






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 different
contexts.
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 protect
our self esteem and self concept (Schlenker et al
,1990)
See key research sheet for:
Davies 1996-Attributional stages of addiction.
So let’s weigh this argument up
There are doubts about
#2
There is good evidence on
validity. Davies did not provide
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.

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)
Approaches + Issues + Debates = Depth &
Breadth= Higher marks!!
Ok...the last one I promise!!
Social context.






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...I lied this is the
last one!!




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.
Approaches + Issues + Debates = Depth & Breadth= Higher marks!!
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?