Behavioural Approach to Addiction

This approach maintains that all human behaviour is learnt, including addiction. The three explanations offered up by this approach is that the behaviour was either learnt through Classical Conditioning, Operant Conditioning, or through Social Learning Theory. Classical conditioning is basic stimulus and response. Behaviour is likely to be repeated if you are conditioned through the association of two or more stimuli to have a positive response. For example; an individual may enjoy spending time with their friends (being the unconditioned stimulus) as the result is their happiness (unconditioned response). If they find their friends are smoking (smoking being a natural stimulus) and the individual decides to join in too, then smoking with friends becomes a conditioned stimulus resulting in the happiness of the individual as the conditioned response. This way, the individual has become conditioned to enjoy smoking. Operant conditioning however, believes that behaviour is learnt through positive and negative reinforcement. Using smoking as an example once again, we imagine a man who has learned that smoking after a stressful day of work relieves him of his stress. Through positive reinforcement, this man has learnt that if he smokes, he will be relieved of his stress. He continues to repeat this behaviour as it relieves him of his discriminative stimulus which makes it more rewarding to engage in the addiction, and so it is maintained through repetition. When it comes to the point that we would try to quit, he suffers withdrawal symptoms and through negative reinforcement, he has learned that if he were to carry on smoking, he would not need to suffer. Therefore quitting becomes negatively reinforced through the withdrawal symptoms and relapse occurs. Finally, there is the outcome expectancy theory. This holds the idea that we learn through the rewards and punishments of our role models and others around us. If a person were to look into a Pub and see many people drinking alcohol and enjoying themselves, an individual may expect the same result from imitating that behaviour. From this, an addiction may be born.

In order to support these theories with evidential data, studies in Scotland have found that adolescents are only susceptible to peer-pressure to smoke if they have a readyness to smoke. If not, they adopt strategies to avoid it in social confrontations. This study hints towards the diathesis stress model by saying that some may be susceptible while others might not be. It also goes against operant conditioning because it doesnt remove negativity. While this may be a weakness for Operant conditioning, it isnt necessarily a strength for the Social Learning Theory. It is also difficult to understand this study as it is very vague and simplistic. It does not explain exactly what a readyness to smoke is and so we cannot generalise these findings because an understanding of the readyness to smoke is a subjective thing. In another study, Murray et al found in 1984 that Children who have parents with attitudes against smoking are 7 times less likely to smoke. This supports the idea of vicarious learning as these children are learning through example to have a negative attitude towards smoking and so they have learnt to avoid any smoking behaviour. One other strength is the fact that it was the parents attitudes that affected the children, not the parents behaviour. This shows that there may be other factors concerning behaviour towards smoking, such as the surrounding environment. In 1991, Lader and Matherson found that children are two times more likely to smoke if their parents do. Just like Murrey et als study, they are supporting the theory of social learning as they show evidence of vicarious learning. On the other hand, it could simply be due to a genetic factor. If the parents have an affinity to smoking, then the children will do, for example, Shields twin studies on smoking also found a genetic link in smoking. Therefore, we could be making a faulty conclusion as it is possible that this study better supports the Biological theory of addiction.