“Amotivational Syndrome”

Jesse Love A motiveal Syndrome and hemp economic role An Ongoing Debate November 30, 2008 The positive degree or negative ca handling of marihuana usage ar a ballpark point of discussion among psychologists. One of the more(prenominal) coarse debates surrounds A motifal Syndrome (i. e. the purported escape of motivation that results from hemp affair). The existence or non-existence of this syndrome has been discussed for everyplace a century among slightly(prenominal) users and non-users alike (Dun foot, 1987, p. 114).The cardinal articles chosen for this essay attempt to modulate whether amotivational syndrome is a by-product of hemp use by applying two separate methods of analysis. By analyzing these articles it give be clear that in that location is no conclusive evidence that suggests a purport correlation amidst amotivational syndrome and ganja use. In 1987, David F. Duncan want to critique former studies of hemp use that claimed amotivational syndrom e was a overriding phenomenon among slap-up marijuana users.He aimed to challenge introductory studies that assumed, in their stopping points, that users of marijuana possessed characteristics of introversion, passivity, and drop of achievement-orientation (Duncan, 1987, p. 114). In his introduction, Duncan introduced botch up-cultural examples w here(predicate) marijuana use is actually utilize as a stimulant for instance in Jamaica, where he compargons marijuana use to North American coffee inhalation (Duncan, 1987, p. 115). Duncan concludes that only by conducting a comparative poll, i. . by victorious a sample of subjects who are both users and non-users, could received evidence for marijuana-related antimotivational syndrome be inflexible (Duncan, 1987, p. 115). Duncan pointed to the flaws a study conducted by Halikas et al. In 1982. Halikas wanted to feel the flavour sentence preponderance of amotivational syndrome in life sequence users of marijuana. To do so, h e posed a single unbelief meant to encompass the criterion of amotivational syndrome.The question encompassed elements much(prenominal) as Have you ever had a period when you werent depressed or unhappy, but you just seemed to lose your motivation although you werent particularly up commit 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 resemblance between users and non-users. Therefore, Duncan apply the same questionnaire and employ it to a series of high-achieving subjects to determine the relative frequency of amotivational syndrome within a larger community of both users and non-users.Duncan selected two hundred cardinal-eight athletic students (some former Olympians) from a European university. All subjects were required to speak side of meat and came from various parts of the world. He began by requesting all subjects to fill out a questionnaire regarding past marijuana con sumption. The subjects were subsequently divided into three groups 1) those who had never used marijuana, 2) those who used marijuana fooling 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 in that respect was no significant variation in the frequency of amotivational syndrome among marijuana users (Duncan, 1987, p. 117). These results only at go to debunk the initial findings of Halikas et al. and other psychologists who had followed homogeneous 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 am otivational syndrome is more prevalent among marijuana users. The limitations of this enquiry are thusly quite clear. in store(predicate) studies will require both hanker and short-run analysis of both users and non-users. Also, a controlled definition of motivation will be required to determine what a lack in that respectof implies. To make improvements cardinal would therefore need to have 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 fact a rest at all. Duncan in conclusion argued that he was electrostatic prepared to relegate the antimotivational syndrome to the growing jot heap of discarded marijuana myths (Duncan, 1987, p. 118). In 2002, Cherek et al. conducted a much more high-octane study of amotivational syndrome, by-line a sum of the suggestions offered years earlier by Duncan.They offered a vague definition of amotivational syndrome as a set of characteristics including general apathy expiry of productivitylethargy (and) depression among others (Cherek, Lane and Dougherty, 2002, p. 26). condescension these agreed upon attributes of amotivational syndrome, Cherek et al. also rig it ambitious 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 cuddle in conjunction with a forward-moving ratio roll (PR) and a fixed-time schedule (FT). In this way, they could define and measure motivation by measuring changes in PR responding across changes in reinforcing stimulus order of magnitude (Cherek et al. , 2002, p. 27).Monetary reward would be used as an operational reinforcement and data would be stupidd on subject result rates. The first experiment involved fivesome males who were occasional marijuana users. It was used to strengthen 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 reject and that the changes in response rate and ratios were conformable with the operational method established from the spring 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 THC sup ply, dividing it into three strains of potency. They argued that a diminish in PR response following acute marijuana administration magic spell the keeping the reinforcer at a constant level would indicate lessen levels of motivation (Cherek et al. , 2002, p. 30). The results of Experiment 2 anatomy 1 indicated that acute marijuana consumption did alter behavior. However, the results were not dose dependent.Experiment 2 Phase 2 showed that the marijuana- generate decreases in responding can be overcome by change magnitude the reinforcer (Cherek et. al, 2002, p. 35). This meant that although it was clear that there were subject behavioral differences between marijuana induced subjects and the placebo subjects, these differences could be overcome by offer 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 emergence in the reinforcement.They pointed out tha t other studies had achieved results that disconfirmed this conclusion. However, those studies did not offer the availability of at least one alternative response for the subjects. 1 Cherek et al. suggested that one could construe their study as an indicant that marijuana does induce amotivational behavior. Still, this is not exclusively conclusive because the study solely examined the effects of short-term acute marijuana use. most(prenominal) of the controversy surrounding marijuana use generally questions whether long-term use, instead 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 refined number of subjects and the environment in which they were well-tried (a small room). These articles are particularly kindle for me because I am an occasional marijuana user and have always been touch 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 political reasons rather than because of empirical data.I also suppose that amotivational syndrome is common among both users and non-users alike. Whether or not users are more disposed to this phenomenon is muted up for debate. Cherek et al. s study was also fascinate because it demonstrated that amotivational syndrome (whether induced by marijuana or not) could be overcome by increasing the reinforcement. This makes a lot of guts in my world-view, as quite lots the individuals I have known will become motivated only if they believe they will reap reasonable rewards. If the rewards are not worth the effort, amotivational syndrome whitethorn 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 ther e is more speculation regarding marijuana than there is empirical evidence. The topic of amotivational syndrome is particularly troublesome because of the tricky nature of defining motivation. This problem 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 personal effects Following Marijuana Smoking down the stairs Laboratory Conditions. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 10(1), 26-38. Duncan, David F. (1987). biography Prevalence of Antimotivational Syndrome Among Users and Non-Users of Hashish. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 1(2), 114-119. &8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212 1 Cherek et al. , 35. 2 Cherek et al. , 36.