“Amotivational Syndrome”

Jesse Love A motiveal Syndrome and cannabis do An on-going Debate November 30, 2008 The positive or negative ca employ of ganja enjoyment be a vernacular point of discussion among psychologists. One of the more(prenominal) communal debates surrounds A pauperizational Syndrome (i. e. the purported lack of motivating that results from marihuana single-valued function). The existence or non-existence of this syndrome has been discussed for over a century among some(prenominal) utilisers and non-users as well (Dun rat, 1987, p. 114).The dickens articles chosen for this essay attempt to check whether amotivational syndrome is a by-product of hemp use by applying two separate rules of analysis. By analyzing these articles it pull up stakes be clear that there is no decisive attest that suggests a direct correlation amid amotivational syndrome and marihuana use. In 1987, David F. Duncan sought to critique previous studies of hemp use that claimed amotivational synd rome was a prevalent phenomenon among precipitous ganja users.He aimed to challenge previous studies that assumed, in their conclusions, that users of marijuana sacrifice 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 actually used as a stimulation for instance in Jamaica, where he compares marijuana use to North American coffee consumption (Duncan, 1987, p. 115). Duncan concludes that yet by conducting a comparative workplace, i. . by pickings a sample of subjects who are twain users and non-users, could substantial evidence for marijuana-related antimotivational syndrome be de depotined (Duncan, 1987, p. 115). Duncan pointed to the flaws a training conducted by Halikas et al. In 1982. Halikas wanted to determine the spirit prevalence of amotivational syndrome in animation sentence users of marijuana. To do so, he posed a single question meant to cross the criterion of amotivational syndrome.The question encompassed elements such as provoke you ever had a period when you werent low-spirited or unhappy, but you just seemed to lose your motivation although you werent particularly up descend by that printing? (Duncan, 1987, p. 116). Duncan argued that Halikas et al. s study, in particular, was a failure because it failed to prolong a comparison between users and non-users. Therefore, Duncan used the homogeneous questionnaire and applied it to a series of high-achieving subjects to determine the relative frequency of amotivational syndrome within a larger population of both users and non-users.Duncan selected two hundred thirty-eight athletic students (some source Olympians) from a European university. All subjects were need to let the cat verboten of the bag English and came from various parts of the world. He began by requesting all subjects to look at out a questionnaire regarding old marijuana consumption. The subjects were subsequently divided into three groups 1) those who had neer 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 everyday/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 serve to debunk the initial findings of Halikas et al. and other psychologists who had sustained 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 syn drome is more prevalent among marijuana users. The limitations of this research are thus quite clear. Future studies will require both long and short-term analysis of both users and non-users. Also, a controlled definition of motivation will be required to determine what a lack thereof implies. To slay improvements ane would therefore need to hold back 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 dissimilarity at all. Duncan ultimately argued that he was still on the watch to relegate the antimotivational syndrome to the growing scrap heap of cast aside marijuana myths (Duncan, 1987, p. 118). In 2002, Cherek et al. conducted a very much more dynamic study of amotivational syndrome, following a result of the suggestions offer ed years earlier by Duncan.They offered a dark definition of amotivational syndrome as a set of characteristics including global apathyloss of productivitylethargy (and) depression among others (Cherek, course and Dougherty, 2002, p. 26). Despite these agreed upon attributes of amotivational syndrome, Cherek et al. also found it sticky 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 sortal approach in participation with a progressive ratio schedule (PR) and a fixed-time schedule (FT). In this way, t hey could define and measure motivation by measuring changes in PR responding across changes in support magnitude (Cherek et al. , 2002, p. 27).Monetary reward would be used as an running(a) reinforcement and information would be tooshied on subject answer rates. The first experiment involved 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 correct and that the changes in response rate and ratios were consistent with the operational method established 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 crisp marijuana brass while the keeping the reinforcer at a constant level would indicate decreased levels of motivation (Cherek et al. , 2002, p. 30). The results of Experiment 2 Phase 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 mortify 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 increase 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 least 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 make of short-term acute marijuana use. Most of the controversy surrounding marijuana use generally questions whether long-term use, rather than short-term use, cause amotivational behavior. 2 The fact that only short-term marijuana use was studied here is its greatest limitation. It was also extra because of the small number of subjects and the environment in which they were tried and true (a small room). These articles are particularly interesting for me because I am an occasional marijuana user and have always been concerned about how I will be affected in the long-term. I persist to agree with various elements from both studies. I am convinced, like Duncan that ma ny myths concerning marijuana consumption have circulated for political reasons rather than because of empirical data.I also desire 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 wiz in my world-view, as quite often the individuals I have known will become incite only if they believe they will reap commonsense 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 amo tivational syndrome is particularly difficult because of the tricky nature of defining motivation. This problem is deepen when conducting a controlled study because there is very puny motivation, nor may it be possible, for the participants to behave in a controlled environment as they would in the real world.References Cherek, hold out 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.