Evaluate 2 individual differences explanations of addiction

• Point: personality

  One individual differences explanation of addiction is that certain personality traits, such as high neuroticism (N) and psychoticism (P), make individuals more prone to addictive behaviours
• Evidence: personality

  Guangheng Dong et al. (2013) conducted a prospective study in which Chinese university students were assessed for personality traits using the EPQ and later evaluated for internet addiction. The results showed that students with higher N and P scores were more likely to develop addiction, suggesting a causal relationship.
• Evaluation: personality (1)

  However, establishing cause and effect in personality research is difficult because many studies are correlational. While prospective studies like Dong et Al (2013) provide some support, the majority of research assesses personality traits after addiction has developed. This raises the possibility that addiction itself may alter personality traits, rather than personality being a predisposing factor. Additionally, John Kerr (1996) argued that the concept of an “addictive personality” is too broad, as many traits linked to addiction (such as impulsivity) are also…
• Evaluation: personality (2)

  … common in non-addicted individuals and even criminals. This challenges the validity of personality as a singular explanation for addiction.
• Link: personality

  Although personality traits like impulsivity and neuroticism may contribute to addiction risk, the explanation lacks clarity in distinguishing cause from effect and may oversimplify addiction by ignoring other factors such as environmental influences and biological predispositions
• Point: cognitive biases

  Another individual differences explanation of addiction is cognitive biases, which suggest that addicts have distorted thinking patterns that contribute to the development and maintenance of their behaviour
• Evidence: cognitive biases

  Mark Griffiths (1994) compared the verbal responses of regular and non-regular gamblers while playing fruit machines. Regular gamblers showed significantly more irrational verbalisations, indicating cognitive distortions such as the illusion of control. Similarly, Jackie Joukhador et Al (2003) found that problem gamblers scored significantly higher on the Gambling Belief Questionnaire, which measures biases like the gambler’s fallacy
• Evaluation: cognitive biases (1)

  A major issue with the cognitive bias explanation is that it may describe the thought processes of addicts rather than explain what causes addiction. Cognitive biases are also found in non-addicted individuals, meaning they alone cannot account for why some people develop addictions while others do not. Additionally, research on cognitive biases often relies on self-report methods, which are subject to demand characteristics and social desirability bias. For example, gamblers may underreport their irrational thinking if they are aware of its inaccuracy...
• Evaluation: cognitive biases (2)

  Furthermore, Griffiths (2013) highlighted the unpredictability of cognitive biases, as individuals may use different biases in different situations, making it difficult to develop a clear explanatory framework.
• Link: cognitive biases (2)

  While cognitive biases play a role in addiction, they may not be sufficient as a primary explanation the inability to predict when biases will occur and their presence in non-addicted individuals suggest that other factors, such as personality or biological predispositions, must also be considered in explaining addictive behaviours
• Conclusion

  In conclusion, both personality traits and cognitive biases contribute to understanding addiction, but neither fully explains its development. Personality may predispose individuals to addiction, while cognitive biases help maintain it. However, addiction is complex, likely involving a combination of biological, psychological, and environmental factors.