ao3x2

intro

One social psychological explanation of addictive behaviour is the role of peer influence. 

supporting

• imons-Morton & Farhat (2010): Reviewed 40 prospective studies on peers and smoking → all but one showed a positive correlation.

• Maxwell (2002): Found similar results for other addictive behaviours.

• Findings: The more likely peers were to smoke, the more likely the individual was. Also applies to other socially acceptable addictions (e.g., alcohol).

• Strength: Prospective design strengthens evidence, suggesting a possible causal link rather than just correla

refuting

Refuting Evidence – Questioning Peer Influence

• Bullers et al (2001): Longitudinal study found that in many cases, addiction preceded peer group selection.

• Explanation: Individuals often seek out peers who already share their addictive behaviours.

• Implication: Challenges the idea that peers initiate addiction, suggesting instead that peer influence may be more about maintenance than the cause of addiction.

methodological

• Much research into peer influence and addiction relies on self-report methods and correlational designs.

• Self-reports are vulnerable to social desirability bias (e.g., underreporting drinking, smoking, or drug use) → reducing validity.

• Correlational studies cannot establish cause and effect – we cannot be sure if peers cause addiction or if addicts simply choose like-minded peers.

• Therefore, findings may lack accuracy and should be treated with caution when evaluating peer influence in addiction.

intro 2

A second social psychological explanation of addictive behaviour is the role of the media. 

support

• Gunasekera et al. (2005): analysed 87 popular films from the past 20 years.

• Findings: cannabis in 8%, tobacco in 68%, drunken behaviour in 32%.

• Portrayal: addictive behaviours shown positively; negative consequences rarely depicted.

• Implication: provides vicarious reinforcement – audiences may see role models rewarded for addictive behaviour.

• Supports SLT: suggests media exposure can encourage imitation, increasing risk of addiction.

refuting

• Boyd (2008): noted that many films also portray the negative consequences of drinking and drug use.

• Implication: adolescents may be deterred from addiction through vicarious punishment.

• Criticism: challenges the claim that media always encourages addictive behaviour.

• Conclusion: media influence is not one-sided — it can discourage as well as encourage addiction.

methodological

• Issue: Most research into the media and addiction is correlational, so cause-and-effect cannot be established.

• Problem: Media may not be the direct cause — other factors (e.g. friends or parents) could influence both exposure to media and addictive behaviours.

• Supporting study: Pechmann & Shih (1999) used an experimental method with two versions of the same film (one with smoking, one without).

  • Participants who viewed the smoking version had more positive attitudes to smoking.

  • Provides evidence for a causal relationship between media portrayal and smoking attitudes.

• Further point: Media can also discourage addiction through vicarious punishment — e.g. health warnings on cigarette packets, media coverage of celebrity deaths, films showing negative consequences of drug/alcohol use.

reudctionist

• Criticism: Both social psychological explanations are reductionist → they oversimplify addiction.

• Problem: They ignore wider influences beyond peers and media.

• Kobus (2003): Argued we must consider larger social contexts such as family and society.

• Example: Growing up in a household where addiction is the social norm or in a society where addictive behaviour is encouraged may have a greater influence.

deterministic

• Reductionist and simplistic: Social psychological explanations such as peer influence and media influence can be criticised for oversimplifying the causes of addiction by focusing only on immediate social factors.

• Kobus (2003): Argued that addiction must be considered within larger social contexts, such as family dynamics and broader society, not just peers or role models.

conclusion

In conclusion, social psychological explanations highlight how peers and media can influence addictive behaviour through observation and imitation. However, biological factors like dopamine and genetics also play a key role. A holistic approach considering social, environmental, and biological influences provides the most comprehensive understanding of addiction.