Addiction is learned: the nurture side
Learning theory explains behaviour as learned from experience and the environment, not inherited — nobody is born addicted; it is learned, then kept going by its consequences. The spec names two theories; use both. Operant conditioning (Skinner): a reinforcer makes behaviour more likely, punishment less likely. Social learning theory (Bandura): learning by watching and copying others, especially a rewarded model. Placing the cause in the environment makes it nurture.
Operant: reward added and discomfort removed
Both reinforcements make the behaviour more likely. Positive adds something pleasant — a win, the taste, the group's approval. Negative removes something unpleasant — the craving, the shaking, the worry. Positive dominates early (it feels good), negative later (stopping feels worse), so addiction persists as pleasure fades. Also examinable: primary reinforcers act on the body, secondary by association; punishment often fails, being delayed while reinforcement is immediate.
SLT: how the behaviour starts (five steps)
Social learning theory answers what operant conditioning cannot — why the person acted the first time. The chain: role model (someone admired); observational learning (watching); identification (wanting to be like them); vicarious reinforcement (seeing the model rewarded, second-hand); imitation (copying it, after which operant conditioning takes over). Seeing a model suffer makes imitation less likely, so the reward step does the real work.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Negative reinforcement is not punishment
The commonest error on the operant account inverts it. Negative reinforcement takes an unpleasant thing away, so the behaviour becomes more likely (drinking to stop the shaking). Positive punishment adds one, so it becomes less likely (the hangover). Ask two questions: added (positive) or removed (negative)? More likely (reinforcement) or less (punishment)? The label follows.
Features of addiction are not the explanation
The question asks how learning theory explains addiction, not what it looks like. Withdrawal, tolerance and loss of control are features (3.1.1), not the process behind them. Creditworthy: each bet brings the buzz of a win — positive reinforcement — so it repeats. Convert a feature with because: drinking to stop withdrawal is negative reinforcement. Check which is asked.
June 2023 P1 Q10
Naming an evaluation point, not explaining it
Statement 3.1.6 includes strengths and weaknesses, so evaluation is examinable. Identification: one weakness is that it ignores biology — a label. Explained: it cannot say why only some of a group with the same models and reinforcement become addicted, so an inherited difference it leaves out must also matter — incomplete. Describe asks what it is; explain asks why it counts.
June 2024 P1 Q11b; Q15b
Vicarious reinforcement needs a reward seen
Vicarious reinforcement is not simply seeing a behaviour — it is seeing the model rewarded for it. Leave out the reward and it collapses into ordinary observation, so it no longer explains why the person copied. Say what the model gained: won money, relaxed, was admired. Seeing a model suffer is vicarious punishment, so the reward, not the watching, does the work.
A correlation is not proof of copying
Children of heavy drinkers are more likely to drink heavily, but that is two things going together, not proof one caused the other. A child both watches the model and shares about half the parent's genes, so the higher rate could be modelling, genes, or both. It fits learning theory but does not prove copying caused it — a correlation is evidence, never proof.
Use both theories, not just one
Operant conditioning explains why an addiction is maintained; social learning theory explains why it starts. Using only one caps a higher-tariff answer. Give the operant account (reinforcement, punishment) and the social learning chain (model, observation, identification, vicarious reinforcement, imitation). Do not confuse them, or either with the addiction's features.
Learned does not mean chosen or universal
Two false conclusions. Learned does not mean chosen: the process is largely automatic, and once negative reinforcement dominates, stopping restores the feeling the behaviour removes — but a learned behaviour can be re-learned, which is why treatments exist. Nor would everyone exposed be addicted; only a minority are — a weakness, not weak willpower. It is nurture, not nature.
June 2019 P1 Q11a/b; June 2024 P1 Q13; Nov 2020 P1 Q11b
No AO3 without AO2 — a name is not AO2
AO3 cannot be awarded without AO2 present — an evaluation with no link to the person scores nothing. Not application: the name dropped in, repeating the stem, copying a line. Application: betting after his brother boasts of winnings is vicarious reinforcement. AO2 first.
The 9-mark Assess: use both theories, balance
The 9-mark Assess is AO1 3 / AO2 3 / AO3 3; candidates stall for lack of AO3, balance. Plan: give both operant and social learning accounts (AO1); tie details to them, naming model and reinforcer (AO2); strengths and weaknesses, weigh them (AO3); conclude. Prose, not bullets.
Find one model and one reinforcer first
Addiction scenarios almost always contain a person to be the model and a consequence to be the reinforcer. Find one of each first: name who is modelled, and the reward gained or the discomfort removed. That gives two application points and something for the evaluation.
Describe the difference needs a connective
Describe the difference is worth two marks, but two definitions side by side score one. The second needs a connective such as whereas: negative reinforcement removes something unpleasant so it repeats, whereas positive punishment adds something unpleasant so it stops.
Learning theory — the explanation that behaviour is acquired from experience and the environment, rather than inherited. It is the nurture side of the nature and nurture debate.
Reinforcement — a consequence that makes a behaviour more likely to be repeated.
Positive reinforcement — something pleasant is added after the behaviour.
Negative reinforcement — something unpleasant is removed by the behaviour.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
