Addictive behaviours - Social psychological explanation: Peer influences

Question 1

What are the 2 components to this explanation

Answer 1

• social learning theory
• Perceived social norms

Question 2

Describe social learning theory

Answer 2

• Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory
• suggests that people can learn behaviors such as addiction by observing others in their social environment.
• If the model engages in an addictive behavior like smoking and is seen receiving positive outcomes (e.g., social approval or enjoyment), the observer experiences vicarious reinforcement, making them more likely to imitate the behavior.
• The process of learning through observation involves several mediational processes:
  1) The individual pays attention to the model’s behavior. (Someone they admire or see as similar to themselves)
  2) They encode and retain this information in memory, so it can be used later.
  3) Finally, they are motivated to reproduce the behavior if they believe they will experience similar rewards.
  —> This explains how addiction can develop as individuals learn to imitate the behaviors of role models in their social group.

Question 3

Describe perceived social norms

Answer 3

• perceived social norms refer to the accepted rules of behavior within a social group - which influences an individual’s behaviour
• Social norms can be divided into descriptive norms and injunctive norms (Borsari & Carey, 2001).
  1) Descriptive norms: an individual’s perception of how much others engage in a behavior, such as drinking or smoking. For example, a student might overestimate how much alcohol their peers are consuming, believing that “everyone” drinks more than they actually do.
  2) Injunctive norms: refer to what an individual perceives as others’ approval or disapproval of a behavior (the norm of “ought”). A student might perceive that their peers think heavy drinking is more socially acceptable than it actually is.

Question 4

What is the supporting evidence to this explanation

Answer 4

• Simons-Morton et al (2010) conducted a review of ‘Recent findings on peer group influences on adolescent smoking’. They conducted internet searches using keywords to find longitudinal research post 1999.
• In their searches they identified 40 studies that investigated the link between peer group smoking and individual smoking that used a prospective design.
• finding that all but one of the studies showed a positive correlation between peer smoking and individual adolescent smoking

Question 5

When evaluating this explanation, what should you talk about

Answer 5

• usefulness
• reductionism
• determinism
• non-scientific

Question 6

Evaluate this explanation for having useful application

Answer 6

P: One strength of the peer influence explanation is its useful application in developing interventions like ‘social norms marketing,’ which aims to counteract social norms by providing realistic statistics - effectively reshaping individual’s perceptions and behaviours surrounding addiction.
E: Moore et al (2013) trialed social norms marketing in Welsh universities using: beer mats, leaflets and posters that displayed ‘those around you are drinking less than you think; students overestimate what others drink by 44%’. Surveys of students after the campaign found that those who recalled the materials reported lower perceived norms.
T: The strength of this is that if we can create targeted strategies that not only inform but also empower individuals to make healthier choices, it adds credibility and reliability to the explanation
C: However, this may not be enough to treat an individual’s addiction because it makes no effort to look at the individual’s personal circumstances or biology. This oversimplified treatment may therefore lead to ineffective assistance and funding would be better put to use for other treatments.

Question 7

Evaluate the explanation for being reductionist

Answer 7

P: A weakness of the peer influences explanation is its reductionist nature, as it tends to oversimplify the complexities of human behaviour by focusing primarily on social factors while neglecting other important psychological influences and personal circumstances.
E: Research has shown that adolescents with parents who engage in substance use are more likely to develop similar habits, suggesting that familial influences can be just as pivotal as peer dynamics (Kandel, 1985).
T: This suggests that a reductionist approach may lead to an incomplete understanding of the factors contributing to behaviours, as it overlooks how an individual’s biology or cultural background may interact with peer influences. Therefore This reductionist perspective may lead to incomplete or misleading conclusions, lowering the overall validity
C: However, the reductionist nature does serve a purpose in allowing psychologists to isolate components (such as peer influences) and develop targeted treatments. Such as social norms marketing which aims to target perceived social norms

Question 8

Evaluate the explanation for focusing on free will

Answer 8

P: one strength of the peer influences explanation is that it is not entirely deterministic, as it acknowledges the role of free will in individual behaviour. Although their peers may have an influence, individuals maintain the autonomy to choose which friends they associate with and whether or not to adopt those behaviours.
E: Research by Ennett and Bauman (1994) supports this, as they found through a survey that not all individuals conform to the smoking habits of their friends. Some adolescents chose not to smoke, even when surrounded by peers who did, demonstrating their capacity to exercise free will and resist negative behaviors.
T: This recognition of free will suggests that people are not inevitably determined by their social circles, which promotes personal responsibility and accountability. Therefore this is encouraging for individuals to take ownership of their recovery rather than seeing themselves as passive victims of peer influence.
C: However, research by Allen et al. (2005) found that adolescents are highly susceptible to peer pressure, especially in situations involving risky behaviors like substance use. Therefore suggesting that perhaps for adolescents, the strength of peer pressure may overpower their capacity for free will, leading to them being determined by their peers to form addictive habits. Which therefore lowers the validity of the overall explanation

Question 9

Evaluate the explanation for using non-scientific methods

Answer 9

P: a weakness of the peer influences explanation is its reliance on predominantly non-scientific research methods, which raises concerns about the validity and reliability of the findings. As researchers cannot ethically and practically assign individuals to particular peer groups or friendships, much of the evidence comes from self-reports which are prone to social desirability bias.
E: Supporting research such as Moore et al (2013) utilised self-reports in order to survey students to gain insight into how effective social norms marketing was. The issue is that if students lied in order to give more socially desirable answers (such as reporting that their minds had been changed about drinking), it means that any conclusions are invalid and unreliable
T: Therefore, this dependency on non-scientific methodology renders the explanation as having lower credibility and any success seen in practical application, therefore unreliable and invalid.
C: However, self-reports are still valuable as a methodology as they can provide an in-depth insight into behaviours and their reasonings, that other scientific methods wouldn’t be able to produce.