{"id":162,"date":"2019-12-04T17:31:01","date_gmt":"2019-12-04T17:31:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/substancemisusepart1\/chapter\/ch-1-name-3\/"},"modified":"2020-11-13T19:59:26","modified_gmt":"2020-11-13T19:59:26","slug":"ch-1-name-3","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu\/substancemisusepart1\/chapter\/ch-1-name-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Ch. 4.1: Cognitive and Learning Theories"},"content":{"raw":"

The first group of theories examined in this chapter are those related to how thinking and learning are both involved in and affected by substance use, substance misuse, and substance use disorders. Cognition<\/em><\/strong><\/a> concerns the mental processes involved in a person\u2019s knowledge, thoughts, and understanding of their experiences. Here we are not only interested in w<\/em>ha<\/em>t a person thinks and believes, but also how<\/em>\u2014the processes and mechanisms that determine what someone knows, thinks, and believes. Psychology even has a word for thinking about thinking\u2014this is metacognition.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

Cognitive process<\/strong>ing<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n

Cognitive process<\/em><\/strong>ing <\/em><\/strong><\/a>has a great potential to influence human behavior. For example, how a person interprets a situation has a great deal to do with how that person will respond\/behave in the situation. Here are different ways a person might interpret seeing a grizzly bear in the wild (stimulus) and how their response is dependent on that interpretation.<\/p>\r\n\"\" \"\"\r\n

Now let\u2019s apply this to an example possibly related to cannabis initiation. What happens when a person is offered alcohol, marijuana, or another psychoactive substance.<\/p>\r\n

\"\"<\/p>\r\n

Here is another way in which cognitive processing\u2014interpreting situations\u2014is relevant. Consider the body of evidence concerning women becoming less aware of (or less uncomfortable with) situational cues concerning their risk of being sexually assaulted as their blood alcohol concentration rises to or above that specified as unsafe for driving\u20140.08 (Davis et al., 2009; Testa & Livingston, 2009). Substance use can impair a person\u2019s interpretation of the potential riskiness of certain situations, which in turn can diminish their capacity for self-protection and early termination of coercive interactions. Practices like pre-planning for one friend designated as non-drinking during an outing and \u201chaving your back\u201d may be employed by women who plan to engage in drinking activities; effectiveness is dependent on that one friend\u2019s power to discern riskiness and effectively deter another from making an unsafe decision.<\/p>\r\n

The alcohol myopia<\/em><\/strong><\/a> theory concerning intimate partner violence (IPV) behavior presents another example of how substance use might determine how situations are interpreted, which in turn influences behavior. The theory addresses the fact that IPV incidents are more frequent when one partner in a violent relationship has been drinking alcohol (Mengo & Leonard, in press). With alcohol myopia, a person might focus on immediate circumstances and events rather than placing them in a broader or longer-term context\u2014becoming \u201cnearsighted\u201d in a situation\u2014when alcohol has been consumed; this interferes with reasonable, accurate interpretation of what is happening. Alcohol myopia theory suggests that someone who has been drinking may be more likely to interpret another person\u2019s behavior as threatening: the pharmacological properties of alcohol reduce capacity to derive meaning from complex information as happens in most social exchanges (Eckhardt, Parrott, & Sprunger, 2015). Interpreting an innocuous behavior as a threat leads to an aggressive behavioral response, including IPV.<\/p>\r\n

<\/p>\r\n

Cognitive processes link to our feelings\/emotions\/affect, as well. For example, how we label our feelings has an influence on how emotions are experienced and how we behave in response to emotions. For example, if you have only a few labels available for describing and understanding affect<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (e.g., mad, sad, glad) then you have relatively few options available for how you behave in response; having more affective labels cognitively available for the emotions related to an event or experience offers a wider array of behavioral responses. Consider, for instance, what might happen in two different scenarios where someone gets a poor grade on an exam\u2014it feels \u201cbad\u201d but what kind of \u201cbad\u201d or negative affect we identify determines how we might respond to the event. Some of the solutions or options are more productive than others:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n

Affect<\/p>\r\n

Label<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

Bad=mad<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

Bad=sad<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

Bad=<\/p>\r\n

frustrated<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

Bad=<\/p>\r\n

disappointed<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

Bad=<\/p>\r\n

guilt\/shame<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Response options<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

quit; run away; blame others; threaten others; try to improve mood with exercise or substance use<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

cry; mope; hide from the situation; try to improve mood with exercise or substance use<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

problem solve; vent to others; \u201cwalk it off;\u201d learn from mistakes for next time; negotiate<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

problem solve; elicit sympathy from others; \u201cwalk it off;\u201d learn from mistakes for next time; negotiate<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

quit; run away; cheat or lie; apologize; try harder next time; elicit sympathy from others<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

<\/td>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n

Individuals differ in how they cognitively label their affective (emotional) experiences which helps explain why they differ so much in how they respond to situations. For example, what is YOUR label for the affect this ambiguous screen bean character is experiencing?<\/p>\r\nHappy?\r\n\r\nTerrified?\r\n\r\nExcited?\r\n\r\nDancing?\r\n\r\nPlaying a sport?\r\n\r\nInjured?\r\n\r\nFalling?\r\n

Identifying what is happening has a lot to do with how we respond behaviorally and understanding this helps us understand a great deal about substance misuse\u2014not only how affect might lead to substance use\/misuse but also how substance use might alter emotions and the cognitive processes involved. [Note: the word \u201caffect\u201d here is not about effects\u2014it is pronounced with the \u201ca\u201d like in apple, not like \u201cuh\u201d in apothecary (which is another word for drugstore).]<\/p>\r\n

A great deal of emphasis in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)<\/em><\/strong><\/a> and other cognitively-based interventions centers on helping someone reinterpret situations, cues, and stimuli and develop new behavioral responses to those cues. Treatment strategies based on theories or models of the role cognition plays in addictive behavior (e.g., cognitive behavior[al] therapy, rational emotive therapy, cognitive skill building) have a common assumption: \u201cCertain cognitive, emotional, and social skills are particularly useful for voluntarily steering one's path out of addiction\u201d (Heather et al., 2018, p. 251).<\/p>\r\n

Rotgers (2012) identified a set of common basic assumptions among cognitive behavioral (CB) models and interventions related to substance use disorders, most of which could be applied to other forms of addictive behavior:<\/p>\r\n\r\n