Stevens 1

Thomas Stevens

M. Wilson

WRIT 2

15 May 2017

Drug Addiction

The root-cause of drug addiction and how to treat it falls subject to the nature versus

nurture debate: are humans a product of their own biology, social environment, or both?

Researchers in biology believe the initial behavior changes of a drug abuser begin

physiologically, although, there is little denying social influence. Sociology research theorizes

that drug abuse and addiction is a direct consequence of social learning, and data stresses less

importance on brain systems. However, data presented from each academic discipline does not

refute the other as wrong; each chooses data that best supports the hypothesis, leaving room

for future academics to supply additional theories. Biological theories on drug addiction are

supported with experiments, usually including brain scans and neurotransmitter observations,

whereas, sociologists, use surveys and self-report methods. The methods from both disciplines

are criticized for their generalizability, or, how they accurately reflect reality. Evidence in

sociology is relatable because humans interact with each other every day, and researchers

value perception of these interactions as reliable data. Since biology suggests the brain forms

human perspective and behavior, the physiological data is imperative because the results are

considered objectively true.

Doctors rely on the findings from social and biological disciplines to better diagnose

drug addiction and find the most efficient treatment. Drug addiction, according to biology
 Stevens 2

researchers Baler and Valkow, is a process that manifests itself in uncontrollable, compulsive

drug seeking and use, and that persists even in spite of negative health and social

consequences (Baler & Valkow, 1). In biology, this persistence of addiction, even through

negative physical and social outcomes, relies heavily on the brains reinforcement system at a

sub-conscious level. Humans are not able to consciously control processes such as release of

dopamine and other hormones, and the neurotransmitter system is affected by drug abuse.

Researchers use a two-dimensional representation of a human brain, with labeled parts and

neural pathways to show the difference in addicted and non-addicted brain patterns (Baler &

Valkow, 4). Brain imaging has improved as technology advances, giving the biological discipline

better platforms, such as PET scans and MRIs, to study adversely affected brain activity in

humans. Brain activity of drug addicts also influences deviant human behavior, but sociology

researchers suggest that social learning drives these behaviors.

In sociology, operant conditioning, which involves positive and negative reinforcement,

is what shapes deviant human behavior, such as drug addiction. In Social Learning and Deviant

Behavior: A Specific Test of General Theory, an article on the role of social learning in human

behavior, Ronald Akers believes that whether deviant or conforming behavior is acquired or

persists depends on past and present rewards or punishments for the behavior and the rewards

and punishments attached to alternative behavior (Akers, 4). The social outcomes for a certain

behavior are what drives future choices, and when deviant behaviors, like drug addiction, are

rewarded positively, the behavior is likely to be repeated. To test this theory, researchers

administered a self-report questionnaire to 3,065 participants dealing with alcohol and

marijuana use. Self-reports have been criticized for their external validity, since participants
 Stevens 3

may attempt to give answers that represent themselves in a positive way. However,

confidentiality of the participants answers to the survey assured that no one but the

researchers would have access to identifiable answers; thus, all said that they felt secure in

responding (Akers, 7). The self-report method, as well as biological brain scans, each prove to

be reliable tests on drug addicting behaviors. These tests can produce complicated data,

making results difficult to comprehend, but each discipline offers understandable explanations

for the average reader.

In both disciplines, background information about the brain, methods, and results are

presented with conventions that make it comprehensible. An easy-to-read glossary on page one

of Baler and Volkows article, Drug Addiction: The Neurobiology of Disrupted Self-Control,

reveals definitions for words used throughout the article, such as reinforcer: a type of stimuli

that strengthens or weakens the behavior that produced it. A reinforcer in drug addiction,

according to the biology discipline, is something that promotes or decreases drug abuse

behavior.

Reinforcers, as well as other sociological concepts in Akers article, are further explained

using footnotes. Footnote 7 reports that groups consisting of peers that are close to an

individual have more influence on his or her deviant behavior. Akers suggests that it is in

interaction with these groups in which the reactions of others differentially reinforce substance

use (Akers, 7) which can lead to addiction. Differential reinforcers are mentioned in the main

text, but the footnote gives more context to this theory. Based on the results that both

disciplines clearly explain, the researchers then attempt to give input on the most viable

treatment for drug addiction. While the biologists believe in physiologically altering the human
 Stevens 4

brain process through controlled drug administration, sociologists merely suggest future

research that would benefit the study further.

Sociologist Ronald Akers does not explicitly discuss the best form of treatment for drug

addiction, however, he says social learning theory testing not only should include analysis of

the use and abuse of stronger and more severely disapproved substances than marijuana and

alcohol (stimulants, depressants, psychedelics, and opiates), but also should include the

collection of longitudinal data (Akers, 17). Longitudinal data includes results from a much more

extended period of testing, which could be efficient for studying long-time drug addicts. More

results on long-time abusers would give the field substantial data to then infer better treatment

for the subjects.

Alternatively, Baler and Volkow provide a section on treatment, with multiple sub-

headings, for researchers and addicts who seek more biological treatment methods (Baler &

Volkow, 6). Under the section heading, Non-DA drugs, researchers suggest a clinical drug

called Topiramate, which has shown some promise for the treatment of alcohol, opiate, and

cocaine addiction. Another promising treatment, usually taken for obesity and metabolic

syndrome, is Rimonabant; researchers place this under the sub-heading Cannabinoid

antagonists, meaning it can combat cannabis addiction. Since the researchers are reviewing

multiple drug treatments for different kinds of addictions, sub-headings are an extremely

effective convention to organize the information for readers. Clearly, biological forms of

treatment will support the idea that addiction begins chemically inside of the brain, and social

interaction is not as influential. Determining how to treat drug addiction is a more central focus
 Stevens 5

in the biology article, whereas determining the cause of addiction is more the focus in the

sociology article.

After review of both the biology and sociology disciplines conventions, the question

remains: is drug addiction a product of the brain, societal influence, or both? Sociologists give

convincing data for the argument that deviant behavior, like drug addiction, is brought on by

reinforcers in society. Biologists would suggest reinforcers that cause addiction, are chemical

and neurotransmitter changes inside of the brain; this theory comes with tangible evidence

consisting of brain scan data. But, completely disregarding one side or the other would not

follow the scientific method that these researchers took. Researchers used conventions that

made the complicated results understandable to a large general audience, and didnt

specifically refute one sides argument. It is widely agreed that the human experience does not

exist solely through brain activity, or human perception; it is a mesh of both, and quite possibly

more than what has been discovered. A combination of the two perspectives will promote

more ground-breaking research and results, and presumably help the millions who suffer from

drug addiction in this world.

 Stevens 6

Works Cited

Akers, Ronald L., Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Marcia Radosevich. "Social Learning

and Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory." American Sociological

Review 44.4 (1979): 636. Web.

Baler, Ruben D., and Nora D. Volkow. "Drug addiction: the neurobiology of disrupted self-

control." Trends in Molecular Medicine12.12 (2006): 559-66. Web.