Paper+2+Dysfunctional+Option+(Mental+or+Bio)

__ Szasz argues that there is no such thing as mental illness. Using psychological research, evaluate biological explanations of **one** particular dysfunctional behaviour. [20 marks] __ //[The question is focussing mainly on biological aetiologies. However, alternative explanations should be offfered as part of the evaluation. The question also mentions reference to research, therefore 'forcing' empirical evidence to be included.] The first paragraph has been done for your. //

Whilst 'addiction' itself is not classified as a dysfunctional behaviour in the DSM IV-TR, current work on the DSM V indicates that the term may well be used in that edition. Currently, one particular disorder that is classified in the DSM VI-TR is '//substance-related disorders',// including a range of substances//.// The etiologies of such 'abuse' and 'dependence', however, are considered to be very similar. The predominant societal view of addiction is not of it as a 'disorder', a 'disease' of the mind or brain, but a result of free will; the abuser has chosen this path. However, research is growing in favour of 'substance abuse disorder' and 'substance dependence disorder' being more biologically determined which, in turn, is affecting both approaches to treatments and changes in our understanding of this condition.

One argument in favour of substance abuse as a __biological__ disorder is the role of __genetic predisposition__ as a main etiology of addictive behaviour. In a study by Cadoret et al. (1995), it was shown that adopted children with biological parents suffering from alcohol abuse tended to have higher rates of alcohol problems, as opposed to adopted children with non-alcoholic parents. This study highlighted the possible relationship between addiction and genetic influences. Owing to the fact that the children where not living with their birth parents, addiction due to environmental influence can be overlooked and a biological cause is the only explanation for such results. [How much evidence is there? And how 'solid' is it? May need some evaluation/counter claims here] Virtually all __family studies__ have shown the genetic nature of alcoholism. [Should this paragraph be here? Or placed earlier?] Studies of identical [MZ] twins have documented a higher concordance rate for alcoholism than in fraternal [DZ] twins. The closer genetic link link in identical twins is arguably the primary reason for the higher concordance rate highlighting the strongly physiological nature of substance abuse [Good wording]. Other twin studies point to genetic control of drinking behavior (Partanen 1966): alcohol metabolism (Vesell et al. 1971); and some alcohol consequences, such as cirrhosis and psychoses (Hrubec and Omenn 1981). Half- sibling and adoption studies document a fourfold increased risk for alcoholism in the adopted-out sons and daughters of alcoholics separated from their biological parents in infancy and raised without knowledge of their parents' drinking problem (Schuckit et al. 1972; Goodwin et al. 1974; Bohman et al. 1981; 97; Cloninger et al. 1981). However, being raised by an alcoholic parent figure, but with no alcoholic biological parent, does not seem to increase the risk for alcoholism. [Good paragraph. Links well to 'alternative' explanations from this last sentence]

Biological research has shown that stimulating the __reward system in the brain__ with an electrode causes very pleasurable sensations. A researcher, Regina M. Carelli of the University of North Carolina demostrated that using laboratory animals that drugs of abuse activate pleasure centers of the brain. Due to this positive reinforcing property, these drugs are repeatedly self-administered by laboratory animals and drug addicts. It is generally believed that most of these abuse drugs enhance the pleasure centers by causing the release of a specific neurotransmitter called dopamine. This release, by the functional cells of the brain leads to the drug-seeking behavior that is prevalent among drug addicts. It is also believed that over stimulation of these brain regions by continual drug use exhausts the dopamine systems and leads to depression and an inability to experience normal pleasure. This could account for the craving and other unpleasant side effects experienced during withdrawal from these drugs. If this is not a disorder from birth, then substance dependence may be caused by pathologic changes in brain mechanisms, (Dr. Volkow 2004). The user’s brain chemistry plays a crucial role in the addictive qualities of a drug, she added. “The effects of a drug are not just a function of its pharmacological properties but of the interaction between the drug and the unique biochemical characteristics of the subject’s brain.” Using imaging techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET) and fMRI to study the brains of people with addictions, Dr. Volkow and her colleagues have made significant strides toward piecing together the complex puzzle of addiction. The dopamine system “is one of the main targets for drug abuse,” and dopamine appears to “play a role in the transition from being able to experience a drug like any other event in your life to experiencing it as one of extreme saliency, setting the stage for the process that leads to addiction,” she said. The role of the dopamine neurotransmitter may, therefore prove to be crucial in understanding how such dependence can develop. Addicts have fewer dopamine D2 receptors in several regions of their brains than do controls.[According to?] Through dopamine receptors, which include D2 but also D1, D3, D4, and D5 receptors, dopamine regulates the function of several circuits that are known to be involved in addiction including rewarding, motivation, memory, and inhibitory control circuits. Of particular relevance in the reward, motivation, and control circuits is the role of dopamine in regulating activity in the orbitofrontal cortex and in the anterior cingulate gyrus. [Impressive use of specific terms] The orbitofrontal cortex is responsible, among other things, for determining saliency and attributing importance (valence)—both pleasant and aversive—to events and experiences. The experienced saliency will then motivate the behaviors that result from these events. Saliency is determined, in part, by the amount of “liberated” or available dopamine to interact with the dopamine receptors. When dopamine is liberated, it interacts, among others, with D2 receptors, signaling that an event, experience, or object is salient, deserves attention, and should be consigned to memory for future attention. [Good, specific details. This now needs relating back to the question to show //how// it's relevant]

 Addiction has been linked to psychological dependence on an addictive substance too. Most people would see drug abuse and addiction as a social problem and might even conclude that those who take drugs are those who are morally weak. In addition, some believe that those who take drugs are able to stop if they are willing to change. However, it isn't just a matter of willing or not because when one as already the taste of the drug their brain will be first to be affected, meaning that both the structure and functions are altered. The way that the drug exactly affects the brain, is first the communication system and interrupts the way that nerve cells usually send, receive and process information. There are two ways how the drug exactly does that, first it copies the brain's natural chemical messengers and/or overstimulates the 'reward circuit' of the brain by flooding the circuit with dopamine. The reward circuit would be the main target for the drug to attack first. [Good to raise free-will: could that point early on in this paragraph be developed further?]  However, the idea that all human behaviour can be explained purely in biological terms limits our understanding of dysfunctional behaviour and some critics argue that complex psychological problems can never be reduced to biological causes (Szasz, 1974). Although biological processes are the basis of all behaviour, in turn they are affected by our behaviour, thoughts and emotions. Moreover, evidence for biological causes of abnormal behaviour are often incomplete or inconclusive (Comer, 1995). For example, many neurological studies have been carried out on animals and we cannot be sure that animals experience things such as depression in the same way as humans. Therefore, biological insights drawn from such studies may be uncertain. <span style="color: rgb(9, 93, 30);">[Great parapgraph that clearly bridges from bio to other etiologies] <span style="color: rgb(9, 93, 30);">[So, time for some more counter evidence: cognitive/behavioural...]

There are numerous biological explanations dysfunctional behavior, these include:
 * Synaptic transmission and neurotransmitters
 * Brain Structure and Injury
 * Genetic Predisposition

Predisposition is the capacity we are born with to learn things such as language and concept of self. Negative environmental influences may block the predisposition we have to do certain things. Behaviors displayed by animals can be influenced by genetic predispositions. Genetic predisposition towards certain human behaviors is scientifically investigated by attempts to identify patterns of human behavior. A lot of evidence for genetic predispositions towards certain patterns of human behavior comes from twin studies. The idea that human behavior can have a genetic basis has become controversial due to religious and politically-inspired positions with respect to common human behaviors such as homosexuality. Whether genetics contribute to addiction is controversial and is a derivative of the debated topic of whether genes contribute to behavior at all. The behaviors that accompany things like addiction appear to be influence both by genetic and environmental factors. It is neither nature nor nurture alone, rather nature <span class="chapt_body_italic">and nurture that influence behavior. It is also considered to be the case with addictive behavior, and has been heavily investigated in cases of alcohol and tobacco. There are several methods used to study the influence of genetics on behavior. They are family studies, adoption studies, twin studies, twins-reared-apart and animal studies. Through these various kinds of genetic studies, various results have implied that genes do play a role in addiction, most specifically to alcohol and tobacco. This being the case, it is likely that all behaviors are influenced to some degree by genetics, including addiction. Adoption studies have drawn conclusions that alcohol addiction is genetic. Groups of males that had biological but not adoptive parents that were alcoholics were compared to a group of men that had biological and adoptive parents that were not alcoholics. The former group showed an increased incidence for alcoholism four times greater than the other. Another study by Goodwin et al in 1974 compared the incidence of alcoholism in adopted-away sons of alcoholics with their biological brothers who had been raised by the alcoholic parents. The incidence of alcoholism was identical. He also demonstrated that genetic factors are not as important in determining alcoholism in females.