“Amotivational Syndrome”

Jesse Love Amotivational Syndrome and marijuana social occasion An Ongoing view November 30, 2008 The positive or negative effects of marihuana usage atomic occur 18 a greens point of discussion among psychologists. One of the more common debates surrounds Amotivational Syndrome (i. e. the purported lack of motivation that results from ganja use). The existence or non-existence of this syndrome has been discussed for everywhere a century among twain users and non-users alike (Dun send away, 1987, p. 114).The 2 articles chosen for this essay exertion to de endpointine whether amotivational syndrome is a by-product of hemp use by applying two separate methods of analysis. By analyzing these articles it leave alone be clear that on that point is no definitive evidence that suggests a direct coefficient of correlation between amotivational syndrome and marihuana use. In 1987, David F. Duncan sought to critique previous studies of marijuana use that claimed amotivational syndrome was a prevalent phenomenon among acute marijuana users.He aimed to challenge previous studies that assumed, in their conclusions, that users of marijuana possessed characteristics of introversion, passivity, and lack of achievement-orientation (Duncan, 1987, p. 114). In his introduction, Duncan introduced cross-cultural examples where marijuana use is really used as a stimulant for instance in Jamaica, where he compargons marijuana use to North American coffee consumption (Duncan, 1987, p. 115). Duncan concludes that yet by conducting a comparative look at, i. . by taking a stress of subjects who are both users and non-users, could real evidence for marijuana-related antimotivational syndrome be determined (Duncan, 1987, p. 115). Duncan pointed to the flaws a study conducted by Halikas et al. In 1982. Halikas wanted to determine the sustenancetime prevalence of amotivational syndrome in lifetime users of marijuana. To do so, he posed a single(a) marvel meant to enc ompass the criterion of amotivational syndrome.The question encompassed elements such as choose you ever had a period when you werent depressed or unhappy, plainly you just seemed to lose your motivation although you werent particularly upset by that feeling? (Duncan, 1987, p. 116). Duncan argued that Halikas et al. s study, in particular, was a failure because it failed to offer a comparison between users and non-users. Therefore, Duncan used the same questionnaire and applied it to a serial of high-achieving subjects to determine the frequency of amotivational syndrome within a epicr population of both users and non-users.Duncan selected two hundred thirty-eight athletic students (some former Olympians) from a European university. All subjects were required to speak English and came from various parts of the world. He began by requesting all subjects to fill out a questionnaire regarding past marijuana consumption. The subjects were subsequently divided into three groups 1) t hose who had never used marijuana, 2) those who used marijuana daily for a thirty day period in their life and, 3) those who used marijuana but could not fill the requirements for group 2 (Duncan, 1987, p. 17). The results of this initial questionnaire indicated that 47. 7% had never used marijuana, 23. 8% were occasional/ experimental users and 24. 1% had been daily users. These three groups also responded to the questionnaire borrowed from Halikas et al. It was determined that there was no significant variation in the frequency of amotivational syndrome among marijuana users (Duncan, 1987, p. 117). These results only servicing to debunk the initial findings of Halikas et al. and other psychologists who had followed similar methods of analysis.Indeed, Duncan made this explicit in the conclusion of his report. It is clear from Duncans work that a new methodology is required to determine whether amotivational syndrome is more prevalent among marijuana users. The limitations of this research are therefore quite clear. Future studies will require both enormous and short-term analysis of both users and non-users. Also, a controlled commentary of motivation will be required to determine what a lack thereof implies. To open improvements one would therefore need to pass access, as Duncan had, to a large body of subjects. It would then e necessary to track these subjects, both users and non-users alike, over a sustained period of time to determine whether or not the likelihood of amotivational syndrome is more common among users or non-users, if there is in item a difference at all. Duncan ultimately argued that he was still disposed(p) to relegate the antimotivational syndrome to the growing scrap heap of discarded marijuana myths (Duncan, 1987, p. 118). In 2002, Cherek et al. conducted a much more dynamic study of amotivational syndrome, succeeding(a) a number of the suggestions offered years earlier by Duncan.They offered a vague exposition of amotivationa l syndrome as a set of characteristics including general apathyloss of productivenesslethargy (and) depression among others (Cherek, Lane and Dougherty, 2002, p. 26). Despite these agreed upon attributes of amotivational syndrome, Cherek et al. also found it backbreaking to pinpoint the amotivational phenomenon. They recalled some of the studies referred to by Duncan that found a positive correlation between marijuana usage and amotivational syndrome.By recognizing that amotivational syndrome occurred among users and non-users alike, the researchers concluded that amotivational syndrome was ultimately a question of frequency. Cherek et al. also sought to arrive at a conclusive definition of motivation, both theoretically and methodologically. To cross this hurdle, Cherek et al. opted to follow a behavioral approach in conjunction with a progressive balance schedule (PR) and a fixed-time schedule (FT). In this way, they could define and measure motivation by standard changes in P R responding across changes in reinforcer magnitude (Cherek et al. , 2002, p. 27).Monetary payoff would be used as an practicable reinforcement and data would be based on subject response rates. The first experiment come to five males who were occasional marijuana users. It was used to confirm the initial proposed operational definition of motivational behavior which meant that there was a direct ratio between the response time and the motivation (Cherek et al. , 2002, pp. 27-28). The results proved that their initial suppositions were specify and that the changes in response rate and ratios were consistent with the operational method conventional from the outset of the experiment (Cherek et al. 2002, p. 30). The following two experiments used a different subject base but retained the same reinforcer values. The researchers controlled the tetrahydrocannabinol supply, dividing it into three strains of potency. They argued that a decrease in PR response following acute marijuana administration while the keeping the reinforcer at a constant level would indicate decreased levels of motivation (Cherek et al. , 2002, p. 30). The results of try 2 Phase 1 indicated that acute marijuana consumption did shorten behavior. However, the results were not dose dependent.Experiment 2 Phase 2 showed that the marijuana-induced decreases in responding can be flood out by increasing the reinforcer (Cherek et. al, 2002, p. 35). This meant that although it was clear that there were overt behavioral differences between marijuana induced subjects and the placebo subjects, these differences could be overcome by offering a motivational stimulus. The researchers concluded that acute marijuana users do exhibit some forms of amotivational behavior. This behavior could be usurped if there was an ontogenesis in the reinforcement.They pointed out that other studies had achieved results that disconfirmed this conclusion. However, those studies did not offer the availability of at lea st one alternative response for the subjects. 1 Cherek et al. suggested that one could construe their study as an indication that marijuana does induce amotivational behavior. Still, this is not entirely conclusive because the study solely examined the effects of short-term acute marijuana use. close of the controversy surrounding marijuana use generally questions whether long-term use, earlier than short-term use, effects amotivational behavior. 2 The fact that only short-term marijuana use was studied here is its greatest limitation. It was also limited because of the small number of subjects and the environment in which they were tested (a small room). These articles are particularly interest for me because I am an occasional marijuana user and have of all time been concerned about how I will be affected in the long-term. I tend to agree with various elements from both studies. I am convinced, like Duncan that many myths concerning marijuana consumption have circulated for poli tical reasons rather than because of trial-and-error data.I also believe that amotivational syndrome is common among both users and non-users alike. Whether or not users are more disposed to this phenomenon is still up for debate. Cherek et al. s study was also intriguing because it demonstrated that amotivational syndrome (whether induced by marijuana or not) could be overcome by increasing the reinforcement. This makes a lot of star in my world-view, as quite often the individuals I have cognise will become motivated only if they believe they will pull reasonable rewards. If the rewards are not worth the effort, amotivational syndrome may set it.These studies have demonstrated that there is still much more research to be conducted on the effects of marijuana consumption both in the short- term and the long-term. It appears as if there is more speculation regarding marijuana than there is empirical evidence. The topic of amotivational syndrome is particularly troublesome beca use of the tricky nature of defining motivation. This worry is compounded when conducting a controlled study because there is very little motivation, nor may it be possible, for the participants to behave in a controlled environment as they would in the real world.References Cherek, Don R. , Lane, Scott D. and Dougherty, Donald M (2002). Possible Antimotivational Effects Following Marijuana Smoking Under Laboratory Conditions. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 10(1), 26-38. Duncan, David F. (1987). Lifetime prevalence of Antimotivational Syndrome Among Users and Non-Users of Hashish. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 1(2), 114-119. 1 Cherek et al. , 35. 2 Cherek et al. , 36.