Date post: | 18-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alicia-bailey |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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