GRANT ET AL (2008)- EVAL/ ISSUES AND DEBATES

Question 1

Name 2 strengths and 2 weaknesses of Grant et al (2008) study?

Answer 1

• Strengths= Strong internal validity + Quantitative data
• Weaknesses= Lack of long-term follow up (limited longitudinal robustness) + Ethical issues

Question 2

Strength= Strong internal validity

Answer 2

• Evidence= Placebo-controlled/ double-bind design.
• Effect: Reduces demand characteristics/ research bias—-) enhances causal validity (the effect is due to OA’s)

Demand charactersistics- cannot alter theri behaviour based on perceived aims (exaggerating or undxerreporting symptoms)
Research bias- Cannot unconsciously influence data collection/ data interpretation in a way that alligns with their hypothesis.

Question 3

Strength= Quantitative data/objectivity

Answer 3

• Evidence- Used standardised measurements/consistent numerical scales (PGYBOCS) to measure gambling severity.
• Effect: Reduces variability in data collection, numbers are less prone to bias than self-reports, another researcher can replicate the study and see if they get similar results—-) reliability.

Question 4

One weakness- Lack of long term follow up

Answer 4

• Evidence- Only 16-18 months long with 1 month follow up.
• PG is a long-term, cyclical issue, so its not enough time to determine if the OA’S maintained their effect over time, or if ppts reverted/relapsed.
• Effect- Harder to assess the long term efficacy of OA’s for PG treatment. Reduces ecological validity- are the effects sustained in the real world of cyclical/ chronic gambling?

Question 5

Weakness- ethics (deception)

Answer 5

• Evidence: Placebo in a clinical trial= deception (ppts deceived into thinking their receiving treatments) .
• Effect= Psychological harm (distress, embrassment) Physical harm (risk posed to health/well=beings as they have not recieved any of the benifits to treatment)

Question 6

Real world effect?

Answer 6

• Treating gambling addiction more effectively.
• Helps DRS identify the best candiates for OA’s (people with family history of alcholism)
• Creating personalised treatment plans (individual differences)

Question 7

Nature vs nurture

Answer 7

Nature= suggests biological factors such as opioid system dysfunction, family history of alcoholism) contribute to PG.

HOWEVER- Nurture may play a role since gambling behaviour is influenced by enviromental factors (social exposure, stress, learned behaviours, financial stress)

Question 8

Reductionism vs Holism

Answer 8

• Biologically reductionist- Only considers biological factors such as opioid system dysfunction)
• Ignores cognitive distortions (gamblers fallacy), behaviourist explanations (reinforcement), social influences (peer pressure)

While a biological approach is useful for treatment, a holistic approach (including cognitive and social factors) would give a more complete explanation of gambling addiction.

Question 9

Free will vs determinism

Answer 9

• Biological determinsim- suggests that gambling addiction is influenced by biochemical/genetic factors, meaning individuals may have less control over their behavior (This raises ethical concerns: If gambling addiction is biologically determined, should addicts be held fully responsible for their actions?)

Free will- some gamblers recover without medication (OA’s) suggesting some element of freewill in overcoming addiction.