SOCIAL LEARNING THEORYAs an explanation for Substance Misuse

Complete the matching task to remind you of the social learning theory

Starter

3. a) Describe two explanations of substance misuse. One explanation must be from the Biological Approach, and one from the Learning Approach.

i. Social learning theory and the role of models

Map to Spec – Page 49

4. Describe and evaluate one study on heroin: Blattler et al (2002) - Decreasing intravenous cocaine use in opiate users treated with prescribed heroin, and one other study. This must be selected from a study on alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana, or smoking/nicotine.

Ennett et al (1994) variability in cigarette smoking within and between adolescent friendship cliques.

Map to Spec – Page 50

Albert Bandura

Learn through observation

Learn through imitating models

SOCIAL LEARNING

A R R M

Modelling – The Rules

Behaviour has to be noticed (ATTENTION)

The behaviour has to be remembered (RETENTION)

The person has to be capable of reproducing the behaviour (REPRODUCTION)

There has to be a motivation to repeat the behaviour (MOTIVATION)

Modelling – The Rules

What characteristics of a model increase the likelihood of them being imitated?

The Models

Similar/Older Age Same gender Of higher status

Have to be able to IDENTIFY with them

The Models

Parents and peers affect a person’s drug misuse

Act as role models with whom a person would identify

Family studies = show that drug misuse links to the family – likelihood of modelling

Friends & Family

Social learning of substance misuse depends on the amount of exposure

What is this?

How can it be applied to substance misuse?

Vicarious Reinforcement

See others enjoying smoking/taking drugs

Don’t enjoy smoking in the first place but persist in the behaviour

Have seen others rewarded so expect reward themselves in the future

Vicarious Reinforcement

Much of the theory evolves around peer groups

Mix with peers who misuse a drug

Get positive reinforcement from misusing the drug themselves as they are accepted as part of the group

Positive Reinforcement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srjyCLupuuM

Modelling?

Vicarious Reinforcement?

Positive Reinforcement?

Rachel Smoking

Describe and Evaluate one study

Ennett et al (1994) variability in cigarette smoking within and between adolescent friendship cliques.

Ennett et al (1994)

It has been claimed that peer groups link with adolescent smoking

Previous studies have found a correlation between an adolescent smoking and his/her peer group smoking

Wanted to look at “cliques”

Intragroup homogeneity was expected

BACKGROUND

To investigate the role of friendship groups and cliques in the smoking behaviour of adolescents.

AIM

Students in the 9th/10th grade

FIVE schools within a moderately populated SE county of the USA in 1980

1092 in total 50% female 84% white (remaining

African American)

PARTICIPANTS

Adolescents were interviewed twice in their own homes about their smoking behaviour

- Beginning of 9th grade (14yrs)- Beginning of 10th grade (15yrs)

They also provided the names of their 3 best friends (to identify cliques).

Also looked at a range of other possible mitigating variables such as Mothers educational background

PROCEDURES

Cigarette smoking was defined based on adolescent’s answers and the presence of carbon monoxide in the breath samples.

SMOKING

Cliques comprised of three or more adolescents who link to most of the other members of their group - (42.2% of the sample)

Those not in cliques were called isolates, 28.6% of the total sample.

Liaisons were participants who were friends with other adolescence but not in a clique, which accounted for 29.2% of the sample.

CLIQUES

Individuals Assessment for group membership

The number of clique smokers as a proportion of the number of cliques was calculated

ANALYSIS

89.9% of participants were non-smokers

2% of cliques were entirely smokers

68% of cliques were entirely non-smokers

RESULTS

Cliques that were similar (in race/gender/mothers educational level) were either all smokers or all non-smokers

The dissimilar cliques included both smokers and non-smokers

More all girl cliques smoked than all boy cliques

RESULTS

The smoking rate of clique members was 11.1%

The overall smoking rate in schools was 15.2%

SO… the smoking rate of clique members was LOWER than the overall smoking rate in schools

RESULTS

Adolescents identified as isolates had the highest rate of smoking

RESULTS

Adolescences that smoke tend to associate with ……………..

Clique membership contributes more to non-smoking behaviour than …………….

Smoking has greater social significance to ……….. than ……….. as more all girls cliques smoked than all boy cliques

Cliques contribute more to the maintenance of…………………

This does / does not support the notion of social learning theory as an explanation of substance misuse.

CONCLUSIONS?

Peer groups may contribute more to non-smoking than to smoking, which differs from the common assumption that smoking is a consequence of peer group affiliation.

Still supports social learning theory and imitation of friends/models – but NOT as an explanation of substance misuse

CONCLUSIONS

Complete worksheet on Ennett et al’s study

Colour code the evaluation sheet so you can differentiate between strengths and weaknesses

Your Task

Compare the evaluation points of the biological and social learning explanations of substance misuse

Your Task

Have a go!

EXAM QUESTIONS