Evaluate 2 individ diff exps of addiction (15)

• Para 1: Personality - useful but lacks causality and universality

  • P: one strength of individual differences explanations is their attempt to link consistent personality traits - such as high psychoticism (P) and neuroticism (N) - to addiction.

  • E: Research by Gossop and Eysenck (1980) found drug addicts scored higher on P and N than controls, suggesting a reliable personality profile. Dong et al (2013) further supported this using a prospective study, finding that high P and N scores in students predicted later internet addiction.

  • E: However, most supporting research is correlational, so cause and effect cannot be firmly established - traits like impulsivity may develop because of addiction, not before it. moreover, critics argue the idea of an ‘addictive personality’ is too broad and vague, encompassing traits found in many non-addicted individuals (Kerr, 1996). This reduces the predictive power and scientific…
• Para 1: personality - useful but lacks causality and universality (2)

  • E: … credibility of the explanation.

  • L: In comparison, biological explanations, such as dopamine, are more precise and supported by neuroscientific evidence, suggesting that while personality plays a role, it may not be a primary cause.
• Para 2: cognitive biases - supported but more descriptive than explanatory

  • P: Cognitive biases like the gambler’s fallacy and availability heuristic provide an explanation for gambling addiction through irrational thought processes.

  • E: Griffiths (1994) and Joukhador et al. (2003) found that problem gamblers showed more biased thinking patterns than non-problem gamblers, supporting the idea that heuristics may contribute to continued gambling despite losses.

  • E: However, these findings may merely describe the mindset of addicts rather than explain how addiction begins or why it affects some individuals more than others. For instance, the same cognitive distortions are present in many non-addicted gamblers, so these biases alone may not account for addiction. Additionally, studies often rely on self-report or researcher interpretation, risking bias and demand characteristics.
• Para 2: Cognitive Biases – Supported but More Descriptive Than Explanatory (2)

  • L: this contrasts with social psychological explanations—such as peer influence—which offer a clearer mechanism (e.g., vicarious reinforcement or social norms) and are better supported by predictive research (e.g., SLT studies), arguably making them more useful in explaining real-world addictive behaviour.
• Conclusion

  While individual differences explanations—such as personality traits and cognitive biases—offer valuable insights into why some people are more vulnerable to addiction, they are often limited by issues of causality, overgeneralisation, and poor predictive validity. In contrast, biological and social psychological approaches provide more testable, mechanistic explanations that can better inform treatment and prevention. Therefore, individual differences are best viewed as contributing factors rather than standalone explanations of addictive behaviour.