190 likes | 376 Views
Team Addict. Shir Boger , Luqman Croal -Abrahams, Milad Emamian, Spencer Ollayos , Avi Packer, Jennifer Rottenberg , Sina Shahamatdar , Casey Smith, Jigisha Srivastav , David Teitelbaum , Louis Wolf f. Research Problem. General Societal Problem:
E N D
Team Addict ShirBoger, LuqmanCroal-Abrahams, Milad Emamian, Spencer Ollayos, Avi Packer, Jennifer Rottenberg, SinaShahamatdar, Casey Smith, JigishaSrivastav, David Teitelbaum, Louis Wolff
Research Problem • General Societal Problem: • Prevalence of drug addiction in America • Drug addiction is not being treated effectively • 40%-60% relapse rate (McLellan & McKay, 1998; Hubbard, Craddock, Flynn, & Anderson 1997; Finney & Moos, 1992) • Lack of understanding of addiction processes
Existing Research • Research aims to discover the root of addiction • There has been research linking impulsivity and drug addiction(de Wit, 2009) • Potential cyclical causation
Drug Use Impulsivity
Novelty of Our Research • Existing research: • Looks at toxicity and physiological impact of drugs on impulsivity, not psychological effect • Use of animal models • How our research differs: • Human subjects • Psychological aspect
Reinforcement • Independent variable • Reinforcement schedule: • Refers to how frequently a reward is given based on the number of times a specific behavior is exhibited (Freeman, 1992) • Dissociates pharmacological effects from associated reinforcing schedule • Can model real-world behavior
Impulsivity • “Describes a tendency to act on a whim and, in doing so, disregard a more rational long-term strategy for success” (Madden & Johnson, 2010, p. 11). • A dynamic characteristic • Operationalization: delay discounting test
More Impulsive (drug user) Less Impulsive (non-drug user) (from Bickel & Johnson, 2002)
Question and Hypothesis • Question: Does a reinforcement schedule modeling drug use cause an increased level of impulsivity? • Hypothesis: Participants reinforced under a drug-like reinforcement schedule will exhibit a greater increase in impulsivity than will participants reinforced under a non-drug-like reinforcement schedule.
Recruitment • 45 college-aged participants randomly assigned to 3 groups • Advertise through: • Fliers • SONA system • Listservs • Word of mouth
Procedure Experimental Posttest n =45 Pretest FR-1 Posttest n = 135 n = 45 Pretest FR-N Control Two weeks Posttest n = 45 Pretest
Compensation Experimental Posttest n =45 Pretest FR-1 Posttest n = 135 n = 45 Pretest FR-N Control Two weeks Posttest n = 45 Pretest
Data Analysis and Expected Results • ANOVA • Relative change between groups of impulsivity scores from pretest to post-test • Expected results • Exposure to FR-N schedule leads to decreased impulsivity and exposure to FR-1 leads to increased impulsivity • Implications • Informs rehabilitation treatment
Timeline Spring 2012 • Develop computer program • Plan to effectively advertise and recruit Spring 2013 • Finish data collection • Present at Undergraduate Research Day Fall 2012 • Recruit participants • Begin Data collection • Present at Junior Fall Colloquia Spring 2014 • Complete and submit Thesis • Present Thesis at the Thesis Conference Fall 2013 • Complete data analysis • Complete thesis draft
References de Wit, H. (2009). Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: a review of underlying processes. Addiction Biology, 14, 22-31.doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2008.00129.x. de Wit, H., Flory, J. D., Acheson, A., McCloskey, M., & Manuck, S. B. (2007). IQ and nonplanning impulsivity are independently associated with delay discounting in middle-aged adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 111–121. doi: 0.1016/j.paid.2006.06.026 Finney, J. W., & Moos, R. H. (1992). The long-term course of treated alcoholism: II. predictors and correlates of 10-year functioning and mortality. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53(2), 142-153. Hubbard, R. L., Craddock, G., Flynn, P. M., Anderson, J., & Etheridge, R. (1997). Overview of 1-year follow-up outcomes in the drug abuse treatment outcome study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,11, 261-278. Kirby, K. N., Petry, N. M., & Bickel, W. K. (1999). Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug-using controls. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: General, 128, 78–87. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.1.78. Mazur, J.E. (1987). Quantitative analyses of behavior. In L. Michael, J.E. Mazur, J.A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), The effect of delay and intervening events on reinforcment value (55-73). Hillsdaile, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. McLellan, A. T., & McKay, J. (1998). The treatment of addiction: what can research offer practice?. In M. Greenlick & D. McCarty (Eds.), Bridging the Gap: Forging New Partnerships in Community-Based Drug Abuse Treatment Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Mobini, S., Grant, A., Kass, A. E., & Yeomans, M. R. (2007). Relationships between functional and dysfunctional impulsivity, delay discounting andcognitive distortions. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1517–1528. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.009. Yi, R., Mitchell, S. H., & Bickel, W. K. (2009). Delay Discounting and Substance Abuse-Dependence. In G. J. Madden & W. K. Bickel (Eds.), Impulsivity: The Behavioral and Neurological Science of Discounting (pp. 191-211), Washington DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Acknowledgements • Dr. Richard Yi • Dr. Jim Wallace • Dr. Rebecca Thomas • Ms. Vickie Hill • Ms. Heather Creek • Dr. Will Aklin • Ms. Gerri Foudy • Gemstone Program