Ao3

• Porchaska supporting

  E- higher readiness = fewer cigarettes after 12 months

  E- relationship due to negative correlation

  L- difficult to establish cause and effect could have been caused by perceived behavioural control
• Porchaska opposing

  E- 62% Arab in precontemplation 40% uk us

  E- social norms play role as cultural differences

  L- doesn't acknowledge. Ultralight differnsces like planned behaviour
• Porchaska applicationa

  E- fear arousal advert move to contemplation

  E- nhs cost calc move to preparation

  L- effectiveness
• What is a strength of the theory of planned behaviour?

  There is evidence to support it
• What did Hagger's study (2011) find regarding drinking intentions?

  Higher intention linked to fewer units consumed
• What relationship did Hagger's study suggest between intention and addictive behaviour?

  Negative correlation between intention and behaviour
• What is a limitation of establishing cause and effect in Hagger's study?

  Intention may lead to behaviour change or vice versa
• What did Miller and Howell's study (2005) find about teenagers' intentions to stop gambling?

  Intentions were not related to actual gambling behaviour
• What does the opposing research suggest about the theory of planned behaviour?

  It can only predict intention to change
• How does the theory of planned behaviour provide an incomplete explanation of addictive behaviour?

  It couldn't predict actual behavioural change
• What is a further strength of the theory of planned behaviour model?

  It has real-world applications
• How can the theory of planned behaviour be applied in anti-drug campaigns?

  By providing data about risky behaviour
• What should treatment encourage to increase perceived behavioural control?

  Optimistic outlook and confidence
• What do the effectiveness of campaigns reinforce about intention and behaviour?

  They help change addictive behaviours
• Learning theory nicotine

  S- rat water spout dependant smokers cues

  O- reduced dopamine for chronic smoker

  A--Covert sensitisation imagine unpleasant stimuli

  D- reunforce conclusions
• What is the first step in evaluating risk factors?

  Evaluation of all risk factors
• What should be used to support evidence of a risk factor?

  Supporting evidence not already named
• What does the acronym E stand for in the evaluation process?

  Evidence
• What does the acronym C represent in the evaluation process?

  Conclusion
• Why is the evaluation of risk factors important in real-world applications?

  It helps to reduce risk factors and increase protective factors
• What are the key components of the Icelandic Model for reducing risk factors?

  • Subsidised recreational/sporting activities
  • Encouragement of positive parental qualities
  • Implementation of curfews
• How do subsidised recreational activities help reduce stress and anxiety?

  They provide an alternative outlet for stress
• What is the benefit of encouraging parents to raise children with positive abstinence qualities?

  It helps with perceived parental approval
• How do curfews help reduce risk factors for addiction?

  They reduce NSI and vicarious reinforcement pressure
• What did Kristjansson's research in 2015 show about the Icelandic Model?

  Substance use has decreased consistently
• What is a limitation in assessing the effects of risk factors?

  They are often linked and interrelated
• How do different combinations of risk factors affect addiction?

  They determine the nature and severity of addiction
• Why might an individual with a high metabolism to alcohol still be less likely to become addicted?

  If their peers don't drink and they are low in neuroticism
• What is a more realistic view of risk in addiction?

  • Interaction of different risk factors
  • Consideration of genetic and environmental influences
  • Acknowledgment of individual differences
• Genetic vulnerability supporting

  E- 54% and 77% addiction concordance

  E- share environemtn different genes

  L- credible as empirically tested
• Peers supporting

  E- FB profile with alcahol teens more willing

  E- alacahol main difference

  L- credibl
• Stress

  E- student high level smoke and drink reported higher levels of perceived stress

  E- positive correlation between stress and addiction

  L- stress lead student to self medicate or smoking or drinking cause of stress
• Personality supporting

  E- high scores on Internet adductor yest as those with high neuroticism on personality test

  E- personality and addiction positive correlation

  L- neuroticism lead students to engage with Internet to relax or Internet made them anxious
• Family influence supporting

  E- students drink at home drank more at uni

  E- Percieved parental approval and addiction relationship

  L- lack of detterant leads to drink or caused by 3rd variable such as peers
• Learning theory of gambling

  S- engage firlonger if only rewaraded some time rather than every time

  O- 14% and 2.5% irrational utterances faulty thinking

  A-- aversion therpy electric shock

  D- drug treatment opioid antagonist enahnce gana reduce dopamine
• Cog theory of gambling

  S- 14% and 2.5% irrational utterances fall thinking

  O- respond for longer if rewarded someone time rater tha every time

  A-- cbt

  D- neurochemistry garage reduce dopamine so it play a role
• Neurochemistry of addiction

  S- dopamine reduced after chronic smoking

  O- dependant smokers have strongest cravings

  A-- nrt

  D- cbt