Social Learning Theory and Cocaine Addiction Essay Example

and alcohol, but not pharmaceuticals.

Ads for various legal drugs seem to be all over the television, print media, and the internet. In America, the war on drugs could really be renamed “the war on drugs deemed undesirable by the government,” because there remain many, many potentially harmful and addictive drugs in the public marketplace. With cocaine as one of the most popular illegal narcotics in the United States, in 1998 Americans spent $66 billion on narcotics, including $39 billion on cocaine, $12 billion on heroin, $2. 2 billion on methamphetamine, and $11 billion on marijuana (ONDCP, 2002).

During that same year, Americans spent more than $120 billion dollars on legal drugs, not including the staples alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine, and this number has only continued to grow. This shows how the war on drugs is not as easily understood as it seems, and may in large part be responsible for the behavior learned by those exposed to its message and methods. Whether physical or emotional pain, drugs are everywhere and the dictators of the "good" and the "bad" drugs are the ones who control the “good” ones. From this, drugs like cocaine have long been deemed undesirable and a threat to the fabric of society.

Victimless Crimes Cocaine use is a victimless crime, involving the willing exchange of strongly desired, yet illegal goods and services, where none of the parties involved can consider themselves victims. Although most people disagree with this behavior, there is widespread disagreement about who should be considered a criminal in this instance, while some question whether laws like those enforced by the “war on drugs” can successfully deter such behaviors, since they typically

take place in private and are participated in by the willing. In the year 2000, America spent $17 billion dollars fighting the war on drugs (ONDCP, 2002).

Much of this money was spent on mostly ineffective methods, like telling kids at high school anti-drug presentations that experimenting with marijuana will lead to harder drugs, when there is very little factual support to back up this claim. The idea of instilling fear through propaganda is a common tactic in many wars, but today’s youths are savvier than they are given credit. They know the idea of a “gateway” drug into addiction is largely false, as many young adults that experiment with drugs never advance far past the experimentation phase.

Treating even the smallest drug offense as a felony criminal act does nothing but create hostility and animosity towards the government’s policies. According to recent estimates, close to thirteen million Americans occasionally buy illegal narcotics such as cocaine, ecstasy, and marijuana, while another five to six million are considered hard core users that spend $100-$500 dollars a week on purchasing drugs (Bergman and Zill, 2006). These two groups alone account for sixty billion dollars worth of drug purchases.

The desire to maintain the illegal drug industry is too great, as it continues to make huge profits and is very cheap to produce. Cocaine, alone, is available in Colombia for $1500 dollars per kilo, and when it is sold in the United States, it becomes worth $66,000 dollars a kilo. This also applies to heroin from Pakistan, which when exported to the United States increases in price from $2,600/kilo to $130,000/kilo, as well as methamphetamine which is produced cheaply in labs

around the US for $300 to $500 dollars per kilo and sells on the streets for up to $60,000 per kilo (Bergman and Zill, 2006).

The immense money spent on drugs, especially cocaine, have caused many experts to study the effects of self-administration and whether it is influenced by their own need or a learned need. Cocaine As one of the drugs that Americans spend the most amount of money on, cocaine has garnered considerable attention by the scientific community. Because of its availability, glamorization on television and in the movies, and largely urban carnations of such cocaine derivatives such as crack, cocaine addiction cannot be treated as a problem singular to any one type of person.

Cocaine addicts run the gamut from the obscenely wealthy to the devastatingly poor, with the latter group suffering far greater than the former. The nature of the addiction itself appears to be maintaining equal or greater levels of inebriation, and addicts continuously increase their doses to achieve this. According to studies that allowed animals to administer cocaine to themselves, it was discovered that the animals would often regulate their behavior to accommodate the amount of cocaine available to them.

According to Zittel-Lazarini and colleagues (2007), these observations and others have led several authors to hypothesize that humans as well as animals actively regulate cocaine intake to maintain the positive rewarding effects of the drug at or above an ideal level called variously the trigger point, the hedonic or reward set point, or the satiety threshold (p. 337).

Additionally, environmental such as chronic stress, and/or drug-induced alterations in this self-regulation behavior was recently hypothesized to contribute to the shift from controlled cocaine use

to addiction, thereby implying that a combination of environmental and psychological factors contribute to cocaine addiction. Through this hypothesis, it becomes apparent that social learning theory is at play concerning the nature of this addiction. Social Learning Theory

Though the origins of social learning theory can be said to have its roots in the nineteenth century, beginning in the minds of such men as Gabriel Tarde and Emile Durkheim, the truth is that the British Empiricists all the way back to the Ancient Greek philosophers helped shape what finally became the accept theory. The current definition begins just decades ago with the work of Julian Rotter, who rejected much of the Freudian psychoanalysis and drive-based behaviorism that was popular.

Rotter set forth to explain a psychological motivational principle for behavior, choosing the empirical law of effect, which states that people are motivated to seek out positive stimulation, or reinforcement, and to avoid unpleasant stimulation (Mearns, 2008). Rotter’s departure from instinctual psychoanalysis helped create social learning theory by focusing more on the individual personality as a part of the whole collection of personalities in society. Personality Reflecting Environment

Rotter’s social learning theory goes beyond the belief that environment is represented in personality, making personality more of a reaction to external stimuli than an internal creation independent of environment. To understand behavior, one must take both the individual and the sum collection of experiences and thoughts, and also the environment into account (Mearns, 2008). Behavior thereby becomes some that is not static and unchanging, but something that is fluid and influenced by external factors.

To help explain his theory, Rotter delineated it into four main components: behavior potential, which is the

likelihood of a particular behavior in a situation; expectancy, which is the subjective probability that a given behavior will lead to a particular outcome, or reinforce; reinforcement value, which is the outcome of the action; and the psychological situation, which recalls the subjectivity of one’s perceptions to process their environment (Mearns, 2008).

Social learning theory of Rotter therefore leaves a great deal of room for the subjectivity of the individual to shape behavior based on the environment, which can never be objective. Rotter’s theory contributed to the discussion behaviorism and theories of personalities and how they fit into society, as well as how to best treat them. For example, someone with a severe cocaine addiction would be a reflection of not only their ideas but also of their environment; all these factors must be taken into account during treatment. Influences on Behavior

There have been many ideas that have added to the weight of Rotter’s social learning theory. B. F. Skinner was mainly responsible for the development of the philosophy of radical behaviorism and for the further development of applied behavior analysis, a branch of psychology which aims to develop a unified framework for animal and human behavior based on principles of learning. He conducted research on shaping behavior through positive and negative reinforcement and demonstrated operant conditioning, a behavior modification technique which he developed in contrast with classical conditioning (Bush, 2006).

His idea of the behavior modification technique was to put the subject on a program with steps. The steps would be setting goals which would help you determine how the subject would be changed by following the steps. The program design is designing a program that

will help the subject to reach the desired state. Then implementation and evaluation which is putting the program to use and then evaluating the effectiveness of it. Skinner believes behavior modification is possible by applying principles of reinforcement to bring about behavioral changes.

These changes could be accomplished through positive or negative reinforcement, as well as through punishment. Positive reinforcement strengthens responses by providing desirable rewards, while negative reinforcement strengthens responses by moving aversive stimuli (Strickler, 2006). Punishment uses aversive stimulus following responses to decrease likelihood of behavior in the future. Aversive techniques should not be used in child rearing or in therapy. Behavior is more complex than Skinner assesses and cannot be completely modified by stimulus response alone.

Also, behavior is not totally determined by externals, as Skinner proposes, and his view of human behavior tends to be overly simplistic. Skinner’s view of punishment as an effective principle of behavior modification, because overly simplistic and incomplete in its analysis of the individual complexities of the human mind, are less than desirable. Deciding what behavior is to be punished creates moral and ethical questions as well that he fails to address.

In a victimless crime such as cocaine addiction, punishment through incarceration or fines is not necessarily the proper way to deal with it by Skinner’s beliefs, but some sort of rehabilitative therapy would be necessary to stop further abuse. Certainly, human development would therefore be stunted by behavior such as cocaine abuse that blurs the lines for the individual between positive and negative reinforcement. Human Development With regard to human development, Carl Rogers described principles rather than stages.

The main issue is the development of a self concept

and the progress from an undifferentiated self to being fully differentiated. In the development of the self concept he saw conditional and unconditional positive regard as key. Those raised in an environment of unconditional positive regard have the opportunity to fully actualize themselves; those raised in an environment of conditional positive regard only feel worthy if they match conditions (what Rogers describes as conditions of worth) that have been laid down by others (Cain, 2007).

Optimal development results in a certain process rather than static state. He describes this as the good life where the organism continually aims to fulfill their full potential. Parents can set conditions on their children by rewarding them for straight A’s; when the child matches this condition of worth he or she feel worthy. However, if they get a B, they will feel unworthy by not meeting established conditions. Likewise, children can set conditions on their parents by behaving poorly if they do not receive what they ask for, such as ice cream for dessert or a new toy.

Instead of being well-behaved regardless, the child will act out, knowing that their behavior will illicit response from the parents. Carl Rogers’ nondirective, therapeutic techniques are the terms Rogers used successively, at different points in his career, for his method. This method involves removing obstacles so the client can move forward, freeing him or her for normal growth and development. It emphasizes being fully present with the client and helping the latter truly feel his or her own feelings and desires. Being "nondirective" lets the client deal with what he or she considers important, at his or her own pace.

In dealing with a

person addicted to cocaine, the subjectivity of the person’s perceptions may require a therapist to first understand the right pace to proceed and begin in earnest. Social Cognitive Theory Borrowing much from the work of Rotter, Skinner, and Rogers, Albert Bandura revised the theories of behavior, namely the social learning theory, and renamed it social cognitive theory. Bandura stressed the importance of observational learning and demonstrated that learning occurs from observing the behavior of others.

Bandura agreed with Rotter in identifying the crucial components of observational learning to be the amount of attention given to a person’s behavior and the consequences; the retention in mental memory of the event; the ability for reproduction of the behavior observed; and the motivation or perceived payoff for reproducing the observed behavior. His theory was the first to incorporate the notion of modeling, or vicarious learning, as a form of social learning. Bandura renamed his social learning theory, social cognitive theory, as better description of what he had been advocating since the 1960's.

This name change was also likely the result of an effort to further distance himself and his theory from the behaviorist approach of his predecessors (Stone, 1998). Bandura used social cognitive theory to help with behavioral therapy. The distinctive features of modeling in Bandura’s cognitive-behavioral therapy are that it is the most evidence-based form of psychotherapy. It is active, problem focused, and goal directed. In contrast to many methods, like that of Rogers, Bandura’s method emphasizes the present, concentrating on what the problem is and what steps are needed to alleviate it.

Since the effects of the therapy are concrete (i. e. , changing behaviors) the outcomes tend to

be quite measurable. It provides quick results. If the person is motivated to change, relief can occur rapidly. Because of the subjectivity inherent in most clients and problems in therapy, each method would be better suited to particular clients. For example, Rogers’ method would be suitable for a client capable of exercising a higher degree of independent thought, like those suffering from cocaine addiction, were as Bandura’s therapy would be better suited to clients with who learn through example, like children.

Social Learning Theory as a Tool to Understand Deviant Behavior One of the earlier theories that tried to explain criminal and deviant behavior is differential association theory, stating that the behavior is learned through exposure to and acceptance of definitions favorable to crime, this definition was revised by Akers, who claimed that favorable definitions of crime and deviance are learned in a social setting where the imitation of criminal and deviant behavior also occurs. Miller, et al, 2008).

The reinforcement of deviant behavior like cocaine abuse will lead to further abuse. When the social learning theory was consequently applied to addiction to drugs like cocaine, the four dimensions specified by Akers (1977) remain relevant; however, since it is only possible to test two of these dimensions (definitions and differential association), theoretical discussion is limited to reviewing these aspects. Social Cognitive Theory Literature on Addiction

Social cognitive theory has been used to educate about the nature of alcohol and drug addiction, including cocaine. Johnson and colleagues (1988) summarized the theories and models for alcohol prevention among youth for the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration's Office for Substance Abuse Prevention and Vakalahi (2001) has discussed social cognitive

theory while discussing adolescent substance use and family-based risk and protective factors.

Abuse and Delinquency Studies have shown a strong connection between abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency. A study of the connection conducted in a metropolitan county in the Midwest, using cases of child abuse and neglect that came to the attention of the courts from 1967 through 1971, found the risk of arrest as a juvenile for the abused individuals increased by 55% and the risk of their being arrested for a violent crime as a juvenile increased by 96% (Widom, 2007).

Studies have also shown that the type of abuse and neglect often influences the type of juvenile crime perpetrated by the abused individuals. The same Midwestern study reported that physical abuse was associated with the highest risk of arrest for violent crime, but neglected children were also at higher risk compared with nonabused children. The study found that arrest rates for violent crime were 21% for physically abused children and 20% for neglected children, compared with 14% for the matched controls (Widom, 2007).

Experts have also suggested that abuse and neglect contribute to many other problems for juveniles including alcohol and mental health problems, suicide, prostitution, and poor academic performance. The best way to remedy abuse and neglect is to recognize it and address it early, whether by educators, social and health care workers, mental health practitioners, law enforcement officers, and other youth-serving professionals. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], programs to counsel parents guilty of neglect and abuse are beneficial in curbing juvenile crime and take many different forms.

They may occur in parents’ homes, in schools, in medical or

mental health clinics, or in other community settings, involving one-on-one or group sessions (CDC, 2006). The extent of this neglect often leads to the use of narcotics such as cocaine, and social cognitive theory has been used in many of these studies to show this connection. Social Cognitive Theory Educating about Cocaine According to Sharma (2005), Wilhelmsen and colleagues (1994) implemented and tested school-based alcohol prevention programs for 7th grade students that were based on social cognitive theory.

Pretest and posttest measurements were taken on alcohol use, self-efficacy, expectations, intentions, norms, and attitudes; the results indicated that a highly role-specified version had a higher degree of student involvement and was more successful in engaging students in alcohol prevention activities. In another study, Newman and colleagues (1992) developed and evaluated a ninth grade alcohol education program that was based on problem behavior theory, social cognitive theory and role theory.

Students' knowledge, skills and practices were measured before the program, six weeks after the program, and one year after the program. Significant increases in knowledge and perceived ability to resist pressures to drink were found among experimental students but no significant differences were found for drinking or drinking and driving practices. However, at one year after the program, it was found that significantly fewer experimental students reported riding with a driver who had been drinking.

In another work, Ramirez and colleagues (1999) developed substance abuse prevention intervention for low-income Mexican American youth aged 9-13 years. The intervention was distributed via a satellite television network and featured social models with cognitive behavioral skills and conservative norms regarding substance abuse. Punishment Cocaine and other narcotics lead to punishment not only for those

that produce them, but mainly for those that use them, and one of the greatest casualties of the drug war is the poor and to a large extent, minorities.

While the number of persons in jail and prison grew by 462,006 in the seven decades from 1910 to 1980, in the 1990s alone, aided by the aggressive tactics and mandatory sentencing of drug laws, the number of jail and prison inmates grew by an estimated 816,965. As the millennium turned, America's prison and jail populations approached the 2 million mark (Beck, 2000). While Americans comprise only five percent of the world’s population, it holds twenty-five percent of the world’s inmate population.

This can be equated directly to the war on drugs that often gives sentences to addicts rather than attempting any sort of rehabilitation or counseling programs. In 1999, the Sentencing Project reported that between 1980 and 1997, drug arrests tripled in the United States. In 1997, four out of five drug arrests were for possession, with 44% of those arrests for marijuana offenses. For young adults and juveniles addicted to drugs like cocaine, incarceration can be more traumatic than anything else they may encounter.

New research has shown prison waivers for juveniles to be relatively ineffective, as juveniles serving in adult facilities are at a much higher risk of being assaulted or abused, serve significantly longer sentences than those in juvenile courts, and have significantly higher rates of recidivism compared with similar youths in the juvenile system. While further study is required as to the exact effects of juveniles processed through the criminal court system, evidence suggests that community-based programs are more effective than incarceration in reducing

recidivism, even for violent and other serious offenders (Redding, 2003).

These programs can range from group homes to house arrest, and include counseling and training, allowing the juvenile offenders to not only be held accountable for their crimes, but also learn the appropriate skills needed to succeed in society. With punishment not a useful deterrent, it appears as if the mass majority of cocaine users do not learn from the incarceration, but merely benefit from the connections and easy accessibility they receive once they actually go to jail.

The messages being sent about addiction are largely that it is bad; however the other messages that encourage society to take more and more drugs may also be leading to the rampant addiction to cocaine and other drugs. Environmental Factors Leading to Cocaine Addiction The rampant use of drugs in the United States is often unfairly portrayed in the media, leading many people to believe the worst about certain situations. Many stories of crime include references to illegal drugs, and it becomes easy to infer that the crime is caused by the drugs, and that drugs lead to a higher rate of other crimes.

This is not only misleading, but ignores the nature of addiction and turns to criminals those that should be getting therapy for their problems. Crack-cocaine addiction, especially, has been characterized in the media as responsible for all kinds of crime, from property to violent crime. However, criminologist James Inciardi and colleagues (Mahan, 1993) studied street-addict lifestyles and found that much of the media portrayal of crack-cocaine addiction was misleading at best, wrong at worst, especially when it comes to the different sexes.

When comparing male and female

crack-cocaine addicts, they found that the greater the drug use, the more likely they were to be involved in other types of crime. The crimes they were most likely to commit were property crimes and drug dealing, far more than violent crime. This is believed to be from the fact that the addicts have learned through experience that these crimes have a low arrest rate and are thereby “safer” to execute.

However, a disparity between male and female crack addicts appeared in the study, showing that men were more likely to commit a violent crime while females were more likely to be victimized, possibly from their frequent practice of prostitution in exchange for crack, which often results in extreme physical abuse. Inciardi and his colleagues found that the sex-for-crack-cocaine exchange was so frequent in the inner city it led them to believe that crack-cocaine has a unique impact on women (1993).

However, the nature of cocaine addiction and its results not only differ among sexes, but also among races. And, according to Inciardi and colleagues (2006), cocaine addiction is even influenced by such factors as HIV and AIDS, which have been responsible for changing the user habits of many addicts in poorer communities. Conclusion The evolution of the social learning theory has taken many decades and still has a long way to go before it can explain something as complex as the nature of cocaine addiction, either as an individual problem or the problem of a society as a whole.

While early proponents such as Rotter may suggest that cocaine addiction is a product of environment and individual ideas, later theorists such as Bandura suggest that it is

also a reflection of particular stresses in the external environment. Key to understanding the impact social learning theory can have on cocaine addiction is understanding that all behavior can be modified and is not unchanging. This creates leeway for the addict and the therapist, as any improvement can be taken at a slower pace if necessary.

In considering social learning theory in relation to cocaine addiction, the main factor appears to be education at an early age, for juveniles are extremely susceptible to such behavior as cocaine abuse if they observe it to be free of consequence. However, punishment has also been proven to be suspect in its effectiveness at curbing cocaine addiction, leading one to believe that the only way to overcome the epidemic of cocaine addiction is to educate to the best of human ability.