In this task I will investigate whether or not smoking is a discovered behaviour. I've chosen this particular issue because I recently was a cigarette smoker. My one tailed option hypothesis is the fact that teenagers aged between sixteen and nineteen will learn to smoke cigarettes compared to people aged above two decades old. My two tailed null hypothesis is the fact you will see no significant difference in understanding how to smoke between men and women. My second one tailed choice hypothesis is that peer pressure is more influential than other element in people who smoked. I will be using the interview and questionnaire method to collect research and data for my results; I'll also be looking at national statistics. I will be distributing thirty questionnaires; fifteen for smokers and fifteen for non-smokers. I am going to interview two different people; one is a cigarette smoker and the other is a non-smoker. I plan to investigate whether it's peer pressure or whether a person wished to conform into a particular group or whether it was something else altogether. I'll also be considering Sigmund Freud (1905) and his theory on the psychosexual phases of development. I'll also incorporate the nature vs. nurture controversy. I will check out whether this is a gender founded issue or age group based. By doing his I will hopefully be able to conclude whether smoking is a learned behaviour or not.
Literature Review
Developmental mindset has its own take on smoking. Freud was a psychologist who assumed that sexuality was a robust source which inspired human behaviour as a simple push. His studies included numerous methods and ideas, such as Psychosexual Development theory and free relationship. Freud produced a theory known as the 'psychosexual levels of development'. Freud said that a person must go completely five different periods to become a 'normal' person; and when this does not occur a person may become fixated at any one of these levels. The to begin these stages is known as the 'Oral' level; this stage is normally between the ages of 0-1 years. During this stage a baby will obtain pleasure from sucking, swallowing, biting and chewing. Within the next stage a kid will acquire pleasure from the anal cavity and parental love can be unconditional, this is recognized as the 'Anal' level and occurs between your age groups of 1-3. The 3rd stage is recognized as the 'Phallic' level; this is where sensitivity is created in the genitals and masturbation also commences at this stage in both genders aged between 3-5/6. Future personality development relies significantly how quickly the mental issues between your child and parents are fixed. The next level is recognized as the 'Latency' period this is when the child is aged 5/6 to puberty. This is actually the stage where the child's thoughts and emotions are repressed to the unconscious part of the mind. The final stage is recognized as the 'Genital' stage this is where the kid will have heterosexual wants relating to Freud. That is also the start of adolescence. According to Freud if a kid is weaned at the incorrect time then according to Freud they are simply 'orally fixated'. Which means that a person will have abnormal interest in dental gratification. The kid then becomes an increased eater, drinker or cigarette smoker down the road. Freud believed that this occurred within the person unconsciously hence maybe smoking is not so much a learned behaviour but that it's an 'dental fixation' that your person has no control over; scheduled to being weaned at the incorrect time.
Another psychologist called Edward Thorndike (1874-1949) possessed a theory called the 'Legislations of Impact'. Thorndike thought that environmental factors inspired a person's behavior. This meant that behaviours which possessed a positive effect such as a reward were probably to be repeated whereas behaviours with a bad outcome such as punishment were less likely to be repeated. If this regulation of effect is put on smoking then your there are many different aspects to consider. You are that a person may smoke cigarettes to comply with a person/group and the incentive is being an integral part of the group. Another is that a person may smoke cigars and be part of a group however there could be a bad result for the person from the parents such as punishment. It could also be a smoker obtains a temporary compensation from smoking it is therefore repeated. So Thorndike's legislation of result may be partially highly relevant to people who smoke cigarettes. Negative reinforcement can also happen if one is trying to give up smoking this will cause them to have withdrawal symptoms and get started smoking again.
According to Dr Sheila Bonas who is a lecturer in health mindset (Coventry), 'most smokers begin tinkering with cigarettes in their teens: in the united kingdom only one 1 per cent of 11 season olds smoking regularly. By age 15, this number has risen to 22 %, with girls much more likely to smoke than males. ' (www. netdoctor. co. uk ). She also believed that children whose parents smoked were twice as likely to begin smoking compared to children with non-smoking parents. This again correlates towards smoking being a learned behaviour which it starts from an impact or peers, parents or is because of oral fixation.
Albert Bandura conducted a study to investigate whether children would imitate behaviour. Bandura conducted this research by putting children in an area with an adult and a bobo doll to distinguish whether or not the adult's behavior was imitated. The results showed that Boy's showed more aggression if the model was male than if it were female and girls exhibited more physical hostility is the model was a male and much more verbal aggression if the model was a lady. This shows that children are more likely to imitate the same sex. Bandura believed that the same sex-role behaviour was strengthened by the children's behavior. This implies that smoking could also be imitated due to gender and not only time. In the book by Winstanley (2006, P. 120) it expresses that '. . . more youthful people will engage in risk-taking behaviours such as extreme athletics and taking drugs. ' This demonstrates younger people are more likely to smoke. Corresponding to Joseph Wolpe (1915-1997) '. . . if a reply inhibitory of stress and anxiety can be made to occur in the occurrence of anxiety-evoking stimuli it will weaken the relationship between these stimuli and anxiety. . . ' (Gross, 2005, P. 820). This shows that even if smoking is a learned or natural behaviour it can be unlearned through organized desensitisation.
Methods
I will be using three different methods this consists of the Questionnaire, Interview and statistics method. The first will be using questionnaires this is so that I could obtain more quantative data and then produce them as figures. I am using all shut ended questions. In this manner I could convert them into information. Once I've created the reports I could then compare them with my books review and federal information and analyse whether or not they are analogous. I will be using the quota sampling method. This is because it is cheaper, simpler and quicker than stratified random sampling. Quota sampling is more beneficial for me because I know which i am screening the hypothesis which relates to gender distinctions. Hence I need to give the questionnaires to fifty per cent guys and fifty % females. However it has been mentioned that there may be a slight chance of the researcher being biased in selecting individuals, but in this case it appears impossible, this is because the people who'll be participating will be separated straight into two halves which consist of men and females. An example of a closed concluded question which I will use in my questionnaire is: Do you think smoking is an all natural part of life? Questionnaires are best for lots of reasons which include: the respondents stay anonymous; the info received can frequently be turned into statistical data. However questionnaires can at times be misleading, the results can be misinterpreted, some respondents may answer the questions with what they think appears better, if somebody is there at the time of responding to the questions they might not exactly put what they really think. It isn't very difficult to gain validity in questionnaires on an over-all basis however in this case it generally does not seem that easy this is because the numeric amount of individuals will be smaller than what others may have used. Reliability may also be an issue, it is because I will be offering the questionnaires in a single particular city and Bradford is a very diverse city in conditions of ethnicity. I'd also need to consider who is around at that time when the questionnaire is being done by the participants, this is because the ethical concerns include whether or not the partner is stood by the participant which may nullify the results as well as cause unnecessary stress for the participant. If I carried out the questionnaire again I may well not receive the same results as I did so in Bradford, this is because Bradford is a very culturally diverse city, and if I for example carried out the same questionnaire in Peterborough then I may get different results as it isn't a culturally diverse city as Bradford is. In terms of practicality the questionnaire method seems to be one of the best, it is because it is cheap and will save money and time compared to longitudinal studies.
The second method that i will be using is an interview. There are many different types of interviews however I will be using an unstructured interview method such as what Oakley did. This is because it is more casual and the individuals can feel more comfortable somewhat than feel under examination by the interviewer. In this interview I am going to ask the participants about their smoking habits and the reasons behind it. The advantages of using an interview as a study method is that more detailed information are available. In addition, it has better recognition to the individuals' opinion. In so doing I will be able to acquire more qualitative data and also have a more in-depth understanding of this issue. However there are weaknesses to using questionnaires included in these are: interviewer bias, and accidentally asking loaded questions. It is also very expensive and frustrating. In terms of reliability it isn't very difficult to measure appropriately and truthfully the participant's response, it is because I could ask the participant to develop on a certain replies which seem ambiguous. It's very hard to receive dependability from an unstructured interview; it is because every person's situation and family life could change from each other no matter their qualifications. There aren't many ethical considerations because the participant will not be under any pressure at the time because they'll not know that they are being interviewed and also I would need to protect the response of the individuals from potentially hazardous implications. Also in conditions of practicality this method can consume huge amounts of time.
I may also be utilizing a third method. This will mostly be Government statistics on general household surveys. There are several advantages to using this method which include: it being a cheap and functional method, easy to analyse, it's already collected and comparisons can be made. However it can be biased of the initial collector, the access to such reports may be constrained; it could also have been manipulated to match particular hobbies. There appears to be no ethical considerations because there is no contact between myself and the members. Nonetheless it may lack validity because it is a secondary source so the statistics provided may be biased.
I may also be conducting a pilot study, this is because I wish to test all my methods and when there are any flaws or mistakes within my methods for example in case a question has been worded incorrectly or seems misleading them I can rectify it. I am distributing three different questionnaires and performing one interview. This will enable me to eliminate any mistakes and I will be using samples from around Bradford's multicultural city centre.
I will not be using the study method. An example of the survey method is the census within Britain. The reason I will not be using the review method is basically because it is hard to find valid and reliable data. A study is also time consuming and very expensive. Another method is a natural observation although this technique has high ecological validity it is time-consuming and very expensive hence I didn't utilize this method. Another method which I have decided never to use is the experimental method. Despite the fact that using this method would enable me to control the variables this technique has low ecological validity and they're afflicted by demand characteristics.
Analysis of Results:
My results proved a varied form of conclusions. This included the research and results of why people smoked cigarettes and why people didn't smoke cigars. I sent out 30 questionnaires; fifty % were smokers and fifty per cent were non smokers. A greater proportion of my individuals were aged 16-19 whereas only forty per cent were aged 20+. These results also fit in with Dr Sheila Bonas's point of view on smoking and time; she said that a lot of smokers begin experimenting with cigarettes in their young adults and the results received from the questionnaire do reveal well on her analysis it is because sixty % of individuals were aged 16-19. There is an almost even percentage of male and feminine members with forty three per cent males and fifty seven per cent females, this reflects federal government statistic which clearly show that the amount of male and female smokers is little by little becoming equivalent numerically (see appendix 1).
From the fifty per cent of members who smoked sixty three % said that one of the parents smoked and 27 per cent of smokers said that both parents smoked in support of 10 % of smokers said that their parents did not smoke (see appendix 2). These results combine well with the analysis by Albert Bandura. Bandura presumed a person learns through imitation of others and that it's not so much a 'characteristics' aspect of life but that a person is 'nurtured' into learning. If Bandura's theory is applied then it could appear that the smokers who's parents smoke; actually smoke themselves through imitation of the parents. This seems consistent from the results of the questionnaire, however the ten % of whose parents do not smoke and are smokers can be discussed through Freud's technique on the psychosexual levels of development. It could be concluded that these cigarette smoker who's parent's are non-smokers were 'orally fixated' scheduled to being weaned at the incorrect time. The next question which was asked also included well with the study by Bandura. The results showed that same sex imitation is present in today's population it is because eighty per cent of males said that there surely is another man in family members who smokes and sixty three % of females said that there is another woman within family members who smokes.
Another factor which must be looked at is the factor of peer pressure within smokers. I asked the smokers whether five or even more of these friends smoked; forty eight % said that that they had five or more friends who smoked, these results do not fit in well with the theory Bandura put across in regards to imitation, which is because there the participants who smoke aren't always imitating their parents but could be imitating their peers, financial firms false from these results. Then i asked the individuals what impact them the most to start out smoking. Only thirty three per cent said that it was peer pressure although it was the best percentage. Only twenty % of individuals said that their parents influenced them the most to start smoking. 27 % said that they started out smoking because of the status associated with it, and twenty % thought it was something other these this which affected them the most to start smoking (see appendix 3). Even though results showed a diminutive amount of members thought that peer pressure was the most influential factor it was still the highest percentage of participants, this supports my second one tailed hypothesis which was that peer pressure is more influential than another factor in participants who smoked. This supports Thorndike's 'Laws of Effect'. This is because the folks who presumed that peer pressure was the most influential reason for them to start out smoking performed this to comply with a specific group. When these smokers were rewarded by their peers the smoking of cigarettes was reinforced. One of my individuals from the interview said that 'I smoked because the "cool" kids achieved it and I was one of those uncomfortable types that didn't fit into any real group. ' (See appendix 4). This also proves Thorndike's 'Legislations of Effect' because the interviewee also smoked to conform into an organization and received reinforcement of smoking and matching to Thorndike anything that includes a pleasant consequence is much more likely to be repeated. However Respondent two assumed that the media played a significant role in her mom taking up smoking as it was regarded as a 'cool' function and was strengthened by the general public (See appendix 5) This implies that participants are inspired not merely by peer pressure, their parents or status but also by the mass media which positive reinforcement does play a major role in people smoking cigarettes. This 'Laws of Effect' is also proven from the results of another question which asked whether they liked smoking. Only thirty three per cent of participants actually liked smoking and sixty seven % of participants didn't like smoking. This demonstrates even although participants didn't like smoking so long as the result was nice the participant would still continue to smoke.
The results from the next question showed that ninety three per cent of smokers would like to stop smoking. This demonstrates these participants want to stop smoking however still continue steadily to smoke regardless of their own desires and wishes. This may imply that they either smoke to comply with a person or group or when they try to quit they may have negative reinforcement where they may have drawback symptoms and begin to get started on smoking again; this again helps Thorndike's theory. However this may also be seen in another point of view because Freud assumed that a person does not have any control over dental fixation which means people who smoke do want to stop smoking but cannot anticipated to being orally fixated therefore they may smoke until they come out of this psychosexual stage of development.
The next question was in place to check out if people would smoke if indeed they weren't influenced to begin with. Twenty seven per cent assumed that they would not smoke if they were not inspired to get started on with. Thirteen per cent believed that they would still smoke and sixty per cent of individuals were unsure as to whether or not they would smoke if they were influenced in the beginning. I also found another reason which was peculiar one of my interviewee's said that ' Moreover, I smoked because no person ever told me never to. ' (See appendix 4) This showed that a person will not necessarily have to be influenced to begin smoking by others it might also be personal choice and or because there was no positive or negative reinforcement.
The final question which I provided to smokers was to if they believed that they would have started smoking if they didn't duplicate others. Twenty seven per cent of smoker participants answered that they might have started out smoking Regardless of copying others and seventy three % of participants thought that they might not need smoked cigarettes if they did not copy others. This again reinforces Bandura's imitation theory and Thorndike's 'Legislation of Impact'.
I then asked the non-smoker individuals lots of questions. The first one was why they don't smoke. The highest percentage of men and women responded as not smoking anticipated to health implications associated with smoking, 27 % responded as not smoking due to the financial costs associated with smoking only seven per cent responded as not smoking due to the smell and nineteen per cent as not smoking anticipated to other reasons. (See appendix 7). This can show that not smoking is also a learned behaviour through affect of the multimedia and influence of parents who don't smoking; it is because the multimedia now discourages people to smoke because of the health implications associated with it and nevertheless my research mirrors that of Thorndike. It is because the non-smokers are given negative reinforcement hence for this reason they don't want to smoke. Also both of my interviewee's responded by expressing that either they were not aware of medical implications during smoking or that they did not smoke because these were advised of medical implications before they could even start smoking. Thirteen per cent of smokers thought that smoking was 'cool' and eighty seven per cent thought that smoking had not been cool. But when set alongside the next question only seven per cent of these members wanted to begin smoking alternatively than thirteen per cent. Ninety three per cent of participants said that they wouldn't want to start out smoking. Again this may be because of the negative reinforcement through the marketing or maybe they are not orally fixated at any of the psychosexual phases of development, hence Freud's theory is applied and so is Bandura's.
Conclusion and Evaluation:
The public learning theory shows how we learn by imitating others and how we are inspired by or peers. This can lead us to emulate their behaviour and try smoking. There is an almost immediate effect on our brains with those first smoking cigarettes, so we keep smoking to get this pay back. Later smoking is associated with different activities such as taking in tea and caffeine when this happens a person becomes conditioned regarding to Ivan Pavlov, hence when a person is enjoying coffee or tea their reaction is always to have a cigarette later on because they have got conditioned themselves into this. These mental associations continue to be when smokers make an effort to quit. A person also learns to keep smoking through negative reinforcement by drawback symptoms. It could be figured smoking is both a discovered and unlearned behavior, this is because the results which mirror Freud's theory showed that smoking is an unlearned behaviour and because the results which reflected Bandura's results revealed that smoking is actually a learned behaviour through imitation of others. Thorndike's Law of Impact also shows that smoking is a learned behaviour however it is more through reinforcement rather than so much imitation.
In conclusion I've found that my results generally validate the ideas of psychologists shown in my books review, and are relative to government statistics. I could determine through the results I came across that peer pressure, parents and position all influenced the whether or not a person would start smoking or not. Bandura presumed that children discovered through imitation. That is proven here because almost all participants assumed that they would not have started out smoking if they did not replicate others. It was discovered that peer pressure was the most influential factor amongst people who smoke cigarettes. This responded one of my hypothesis that was 'peer pressure is more influential than every other factor in people who smoked'. This contradicts Freud's theory on oral fixation. Another hypothesis was that there will be no significant difference in learning to smoke between males and females. It was found that they was an extremely small difference between your amount of girl smokers compared to men smokers. Dr Bonas said that females will smoke in comparison to males this mirrors my research results however contradicts federal government statistics; this is because according to federal government statistics more males smoke in comparison to females. However this again is merely by a small ratio. This hypothesis was proven to an magnitude.
Overall the questionnaire went well; I could determine a general notion of what influenced people to start smoking and what they reasons behind it were. However one of the biggest critisms I can determine out of this questionnaire is the fact that it can't be generalised; this is because the test is too small. Only 30 people participated in this questionnaire therefore the sample doesn't represent the wider group, hence in future I'd need a much bigger sample, so that I could generalise it to the united kingdom. Other reasons include which it is only people from the location of Bradford who participated; to eliminate this factor I'd need to carry out this questionnaire in a variety of locations/areas around the UK. However there were some issues which were discovered through the pilot review. I could check out the questionnaire and change some questions which possessed lots of spelling flaws and may be misleading. I also evolved the structure to make it more desirable. After analysing the questionnaire results I emerged to understand that ethnicity may play a great role in people who smoke cigars hence in future I would have questions which relate with ethnicity and I'd likewise have more questions for non-smokers to determine what factors helped them avoid smoking. I'd also distribute the questionnaire to the same amount of females and males and also apply this to this categories aswell this will permit me to have more representative results. I'd also include another question which included asking if the parent who smoked was of the same gender. This might enable me to apply Bandura's theory more critically. My books review was highly relevant to the questions I asked, however in future I would research more psychologists. I also found a question which would have to be reworded: Would you like to start smoking? People may want to begin smoking consequently of this.
