Evaluate biological explanations of addictive behaviours

• Point 1: dopamine and neural mechanisms

  One biological explanation for addiction focuses on dopamine and its role in the brain’s reward system
• Evidence 1: dopamine and neural mechanisms

  Dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens is thought to reinforce addictive behaviours by producing feelings of pleasure. However, this explanation has been criticised for being overly-simplistic. For example, Paul Stokes et Al. (2009) found no significant increase in dopamine when participants consumed cannabis, and Karmen Yoder et Al. (2007) found inconsistent dopamine levels in people given alcohol.
• Evaluate 1: dopamine and neural mechanisms

  These findings challenge the idea that dopamine is universally involved in all forms of addiction. Furthermore, Vaughn Bell (2013) suggests dopamine has become a “fashionable” explanation, ignoring its broader role in motivation and response to aversive stimuli.
• Link 1: dopamine and neural mechanisms

  Thus, while dopamine does contribute to our understanding of some addictive behaviours, it cannot explain them all, limiting its detail and accuracy
• Point 2: genetic explanations

  Another biological explanation highlights genetic factors that predispose individuals to addiction
• Evidence 2: genetic explanations

  Twin studies support this, with Kendler and Prescott (1998) finding a significantly higher concordance rate for cocaine dependence in MZ twins (35%) compared to DZ twins (0%), suggesting a strong genetic influence.
• Evaluate 2: genetic explanations

  However, the same study also showed that initiation was more influenced by environmental factors. Additionally, although genes like DRD2 and Rsu1 have been linked to addictive behaviours, no single "addiction gene" has been found. This shows the complexity of genetic contributions. Biological explanations can also be criticised for being deterministic, possibly reducing personal responsibility in recovery.
• Link 2: genetic explanations

  While this explanation adds detail, it alone cannot explain why all people exposed to addictive substances do not become addicted, limiting its scope
• Point 3: reductionism and social context

  Biological explanations offer detailed insight into brain structures and genetic predispositions, but they often ignore the wider social and cultural context
• Evidence 3: reductionism and social context

  For example, Kendler et Al. (2000) found heritability of tobacco use in women increase over time, and Boardman et Al. (2008) found heritability of smoking was higher in schools where smoking was popular.
• Evaluate 3: reductionism and social context

  These findings imply that biological predispositions may only manifest under certain environmental conditions, highlighting the interaction between biological and social factors.
• Link 3: reductionism and social context

  Therefore, although biological explanations are detailed, they are reductionist and incomplete without considering environmental influences
• Conclusion

  In conclusion, biological explanations of addiction such as the dopamine hypothesis and addiction genes do provide detailed insights into the mechanisms behind addictive behaviours. However, they cannot fully explain the complexity of addiction in isolation. The evidence suggests that biological factors interact with social and environmental influences, meaning a more holistic approach is needed for a complete understanding. Biological explanations are valuable, but they are just one part of a multifaceted issue.