Freud had fascinating ideas of the human psyche and measured the ostensibly eccentric aspects of the human being by presenting his principles in a manner that both shocked and intrigued. His three components of personality still influences psychology in today’s world.
The id is the foundation of the beginning of development in personality. The basic needs of survival influence action and this can be seen from early infanthood. A child can only obtain his needs by showing signs of hunger or pain. The id reflects the belief of Freud that the main objective of human life is to ward off pain and to gain pleasure (Bannister, D., 2009).
The ego serves as a functioning extension of the id in that it applies to the ability and understanding of consequences. The ego allows a person to adjust to society by implementing common sense into the reality of life. Reasoning and problem- solving are a part of the ego as it tries to upgrade one from the simplicity or barbaric nature of the id. One cannot simply attain basic needs like pleasure and avoidance of pain without exerting some complex ideals that serve not only the needs of that person but of the ability to exist peacefully beyond simple desires (Bannister, D., 2009).
The superego serves as a balancing mechanism of both the id and ego. The super ego catapults the person into a realm of higher objectives such as morality and ethical thinking (Bannister, D., 2009). Freud concluded that the rights and wrongs we learned from our parents are subjugated deeply into our consciousness and the superego is used primarily to transport that knowledge into outwardly behavior.
The relationship between id, ego and superego is one that is quite complex. There is a unity among the three that seemingly helps the human being to be progressive despite himself, yet they all have a sort of conflicting nature that causes them to each rely on the aspects of the others to enhance our development.
References
Bannister, D. (2009). Freud's personality factors. Retrieved from
http://changingminds.org/explanations/personality/freud_personality.htm#per.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Determinants of Personality ©
Personality is a major aspect of human existence. So many factors can influence and shape one’s personality and those factors can seemingly become a fusion that determines the overall quality and character that a person possesses.
Genetics are a fascinating part of us both biologically and psychologically. So many aspects of a person fall into the deep pool of genetics including behavior, physical traits and characteristics of one’s personality (Wiley, 2007). Because genetics are unwavering and cannot be changed or determined by the recipient of the genetics, it poses an interesting role in how a personality is developed. A child’s disposition, tendency towards aggression and intelligence can be a result of genetics (Wiley, 2007).
Traits are unique qualifications of personality that we all obtain as human beings. These traits can be plentiful and harmoniously make each person different than the next. Traits can be inherited or even acquired through one’s environment by observing behavior. Agreeableness and neuroticism are some example of personality traits (Livesley, J., Jang, K., Vernon, P., 1998). While the acquisition of traits can be simple, the structure of them can be quite complex. Traits can be phenotypic or even genetically attained (Livesley, J., et al., 1998).
Sociocultural determinants can certainly have an effect on personality. We absorb the environment around us and that shapes and defines whom we develop into. Our social and culture aspects of life certainly delegate how we perceive ourselves and the world around us. Many particular cultures differ in belief systems and those cultural treasures affect the child that is raised among them.
Learning is perhaps one of the most impacting determinants of personality. We not only learn traditional knowledge but behaviors that are acceptable in society. This learning can easily intensify personality and create diversions in what should be expected. A child learns right from wrong when being disciplined over poor behavior or is rewarded for positive actions.
Existential-humanistic considerations revolves around the power that we have as thinking human beings and the free will that is devised from it. This can effect personality by enhancing one’s choices in their actions and behaviors. A person can weigh the consequences of an action and make a decision upon it with free will and understanding of the deliberation process that it elicits.
Unconscious mechanisms help determine personality because it deals with the cause of behavior. A person is impinged on by many events in their lives, both knowingly and unknowingly. A volatile childhood can shape one’s personality and cause them to be guarded with others and fearful because of the essential environment they arose from.
Cognitive processes can primarily be explained as the floating factors that make one’s abilities and knowledge put into action (Flower, L., Hayes, J., 1981). How one relays what they know to be and how they enforce that knowledge in their life shows the complexity of cognitive processes at work. How a person recognizes a threat or can read language and adapt that language as a tool are examples of cognitive processes that can shape personality. The more one thrives on this ability, the more robust and well defined their personality may become.
References
Flower, L., Hayes, J., Initials. (1981). A Cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/356600.
Livesley, J., Jang, K., Vernon, P. (1998). Phenotypic and genetic structure of
traits delineating personality disorder . Archives of General Psychiatry, 55(10), Retrieved from http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/55/10/941.
Wiley, J. (2007). The Evolutionary genetics of personality. Retrieved from
http://www.unm.edu/~gfmiller/newpapers_sept6/penke%202007%20targetarticle.pdf.
Genetics are a fascinating part of us both biologically and psychologically. So many aspects of a person fall into the deep pool of genetics including behavior, physical traits and characteristics of one’s personality (Wiley, 2007). Because genetics are unwavering and cannot be changed or determined by the recipient of the genetics, it poses an interesting role in how a personality is developed. A child’s disposition, tendency towards aggression and intelligence can be a result of genetics (Wiley, 2007).
Traits are unique qualifications of personality that we all obtain as human beings. These traits can be plentiful and harmoniously make each person different than the next. Traits can be inherited or even acquired through one’s environment by observing behavior. Agreeableness and neuroticism are some example of personality traits (Livesley, J., Jang, K., Vernon, P., 1998). While the acquisition of traits can be simple, the structure of them can be quite complex. Traits can be phenotypic or even genetically attained (Livesley, J., et al., 1998).
Sociocultural determinants can certainly have an effect on personality. We absorb the environment around us and that shapes and defines whom we develop into. Our social and culture aspects of life certainly delegate how we perceive ourselves and the world around us. Many particular cultures differ in belief systems and those cultural treasures affect the child that is raised among them.
Learning is perhaps one of the most impacting determinants of personality. We not only learn traditional knowledge but behaviors that are acceptable in society. This learning can easily intensify personality and create diversions in what should be expected. A child learns right from wrong when being disciplined over poor behavior or is rewarded for positive actions.
Existential-humanistic considerations revolves around the power that we have as thinking human beings and the free will that is devised from it. This can effect personality by enhancing one’s choices in their actions and behaviors. A person can weigh the consequences of an action and make a decision upon it with free will and understanding of the deliberation process that it elicits.
Unconscious mechanisms help determine personality because it deals with the cause of behavior. A person is impinged on by many events in their lives, both knowingly and unknowingly. A volatile childhood can shape one’s personality and cause them to be guarded with others and fearful because of the essential environment they arose from.
Cognitive processes can primarily be explained as the floating factors that make one’s abilities and knowledge put into action (Flower, L., Hayes, J., 1981). How one relays what they know to be and how they enforce that knowledge in their life shows the complexity of cognitive processes at work. How a person recognizes a threat or can read language and adapt that language as a tool are examples of cognitive processes that can shape personality. The more one thrives on this ability, the more robust and well defined their personality may become.
References
Flower, L., Hayes, J., Initials. (1981). A Cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/356600.
Livesley, J., Jang, K., Vernon, P. (1998). Phenotypic and genetic structure of
traits delineating personality disorder . Archives of General Psychiatry, 55(10), Retrieved from http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/55/10/941.
Wiley, J. (2007). The Evolutionary genetics of personality. Retrieved from
http://www.unm.edu/~gfmiller/newpapers_sept6/penke%202007%20targetarticle.pdf.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Implications of AHDH Medication Use Among College Students ©
The Implications of AHDH Medication Use Among College Students
Jeannette Villatoro
BKF9454A
Professor Alina Perez
November 30, 2009
Abstract
ADHD has become a rising diagnosis in our nation, specifically among young people. ADHD is characterized by a pattern of disrupting behaviors that can include hyperactivity and inattention (Carlson, 2005). With this rising epidemic of ADHD, an alarming study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of a college campus and subsequently conducted at that college. Results proved that most of the participants surveyed illegally used ADHD medication for academic or social use. Most of the participants were not educated on the effects of the drug with non-prescription use and a majority of the participants failed to understand the consequences of using the drug. This study dared to uncover the truth of ADHD medication use on college campuses, break the stereotypes of the common users of the drug, and try to discover preventive measures to ward of such astonishing drug use among college students.
The Implications of AHDH Medication Use Among College Students
ADHD medication has been noticed recently for being an epidemic leading to abuse among college students without a medical prescription. With the dangerous side effects of the medications along with the vast availability of these medications to those without a viable medical use for it, it has become a major dilemma in society and on college campuses. One particular study utilized qualitative and quantitative research to delve into the depths of ADHD medication use among college students, why and how it is obtained, and through the composed results of the study the authors attempted to uncover means to successfully combat the devastating use of illegal stimulants among young students today.
Background
The authors of this particular study titled Illicit Use of Prescription ADHD Medications on a College Campus: A Multimethodological Approach attempted and successfully proved the perceptions of college students in the matter of ADHD medications as well as the illegal use of such medications (Webb, Noar, 2008). In this research study, qualitative and quantitative research was conducted in the form of surveys, questionnaires, and in-depth interviews. The nature and intent of the study was to assume the reasoning behind illegal usage of ADHD medication and the understanding that the users of the medication may or may not have regarding the effects of the drug.
The importance of this study is plentiful. It highlights illegal drug use among young people today, which is a major concern in society. It focuses on the use of prescription drugs for collegiate matters. As noted by Carlson, “attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is the most common behavior disorder that first appears in childhood” (Carlson, 2005, p. 502). This disorder, most commonly diagnosed among adolescent boys, reflects impulsive behavior and intermittent bursts of rapid responses with brain imaging studies (Carlson, 2005). Adderall is a strong and quick acting drug that is administered to those with ADHD and seems to be the most popular method of controlling the disorder. Adderall, a highly addictive prescription medication for ADHD, is exceedingly prescribed and therefore is quite easily obtained by students who are not intended to use the drug but desire to attain the drug for purposes of the effects (American Psychological Association, 2009).
The authors of this particular study on ADHD medications wanted to discern not just the statistical use of the medications as outlined in previous studies, but the reasons why the stimulants were used and how they were obtained (Webb, Noar, 2008). After all, most studies collected data as to the population of students that use it along with how big the epedimic might be, but the underlying reasons and disturbing facts about the use of ADHD medication was still to be investigated. Quantitative research has certainly given statistics on this troublesome truth about illicit drug use among college students. Furthermore, qualitative research has attempted to reveal the perspective of the students. In one particular qualitative study conducted prior to and separate of the authors study, it was explained that, “students are using Aderall, the ADHD medication that's misused on college campuses to sharpen focus and pump up test-taking ability” (Burrell, J., 2009).
The authors of Illicit Use of Prescription ADHD Medications on a College Campus: A Multimethodological Approach wanted to integrate statistical data with some of the impacting information that can only be acquired from the students themselves. The authors wanted to compile an all-embracing study that made a difference and educed a new understanding of this dilemma. To do this, the authors of the study “examined (1) factors that led to first use of prescription ADHD medications, (2) motives for continued use of these medications, and (3) where and how students access these medications” (Webb, Noar, 2008, p. 2). Many comprehensive approaches such as in-depth interviewing, surveying and questionnaires were exploited by the authors of this study to make sure that all avenues of use and distribution of the stimulants were covered so that a general degree of possible prevention of illegal use of stimulants could be properly assessed (Webb, Noar, 2008). The Institutional Review Board of the college reviewed and accepted the surveys, questionnaires and study methods proposed by the authors of the study (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Research Method
When conducting research for an experiment, it is ethically and scientifically necessary to implement strategies to ensure that threats to validity cannot occur (Davis, Smith, 2009). One of the ways to warrant such a distinction in experimentation that is free from threats is to use a consent form. In this particular experiment regarding ADHD medications among college students, a consent form was given with an extensive outline of the study and the topic of the research for participants to sign and understand (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Whether or not qualitative or quantitative measures are utilized seems to be a major area of interest in the scientific community. According to Aston, quantitative research “argues that both the natural and social sciences strive for testable and confirmable theories that explain phenomena by showing how they are derived from theoretical assumptions” (Aston, M., 2007, p.1). Qualitative research methods, however, “employ an insider's perspective which makes qualitative research an intensely personal and subjective style of research” (Aston, M., 2007, p.1). Both methods are extremely useful and should not be considered as rival methods (Jick, T., 1979). When both methods are executed within one experiment, the benefits of both methods are allowed to flourish and a fusion of numerically verifiable data with hands-on understanding is made.
This particular study regarding ADHD medications among college students utilized both qualitative and quantitative research techniques to bring about a comprehensive mixed model study. In the quantitative design, the authors of this study conducted surveys in two parts. In the first part, surveys were administered in a convenience sampling of 1,340 students in an introductory theory class. The other part was a convenience sampling of an additional 470 students of an upper-level curriculum so that a randomization was effective with a multitude of majors that were selected for the study (Webb, Noar, 2008).
For the qualitative aspect of the study, in-depth interviews were conducted on 175 full-time undergraduate students. Tape recorders were used for transcription and names were replaced with pseudonyms to protect privacy (Webb, Noar, 2008). According to Goodman, “in studying statistics it is sometimes useful to consider improper probability distributions, that is additive measures to the universal event” (Goodman, T., 1977, p. 387). In this particular study outlining illicit ADHD drug use among college students, the authors took careful precaution in making sure that these measures were accounted for. The details of the questions involved were how the student obtained the drugs, how much they knew about the effects, and whether or not they were educated on the drug (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Participants
Studies have shown that illegal stimulant abuse was more common among white and Latino male college students than African American and Asian students (Webb, Noar, 2008). The authors of this particular study wanted to present an equal opportunity to gather statistical analysis and in-depth study on all of the college population. The authors used female and male participants as well as different unique nationalities. They compiled their group of participants by ensuring that different classes were involved as well as different levels of college classman. This would eradicate any variables that could contend this study to be unverifiable or bias in addition to allowing the study to focus on the overall population of students and create a replication study that would prove or disprove the previous findings of common abusers of stimulant drug use (Webb, Noar, 2008). There was no apparent documentation of participants that dropped out of the study or participants that only completed partial areas of the study. Therefore, it seemed to be an inclusive study with considerable results from the participants involved.
Results
The results of the study were staggering with several proportionate measures. The survey results of adderall users were gathered and compared between focus groups. These results were based on the surveys conducted and reflected the use of the drug, motivations for use, and the commonality of use among college students that were studied.
First time use among college students also harbored results and showed that 65% of adderall users without a prescription used other non-prescription stimulants before illegally using ADHD medication (Webb, Noar, 2008). Results were also collected about the understanding that users of ADHD medication had about the side effects of the drug, what it was prescribed for, and the damage it can do when taken without a medical reason.
The authors of the study divided the participants by demographics to understand the proportion of the results better. Of the 708 men that were surveyed, 39% reported illicitly using prescription ADHD stimulants and 61% had not used. Among the 895 women that were surveyed, 266 reported using and 629 reported not using. Concluding the results, it was established that 69% of all participants claiming to have used ADHD medication did so for the first time in a college setting and not outside of school (Webb, Noar, 2008). These results show the urgency of ADHD medication use on a college campus and the alarming rates of illegal use.
Motivations for Taking Illegal ADHD Medications
The authors of this study focused intently on the desire and motivation for students to elicit drug use. Of these motivations, it was captured in this particular research study that most students are motivated by two categories that the study separates as academic reasons and non-academic reasons (Webb, Noar, 2008). Because the drug heightens the senses and ability to focus with stamina, it is a common drug that is easy to find and difficult to stop using. An important factor that was adapted through this study was that “unlike most other illegal substances that these college students took, they did not use stimulants primarily for social or entertainment purposes” (Webb, Noar, 2008, p. 4). This is a huge development when discerning the reasons for ADHD medication use because it showed that 72% of the participants in the study used the drug for getting good grades, staying up late, and to study longer rather than for recreational reasons (Webb, Noar, 2008). Of that 72%, about a third of participants specifically gave a motive of being smarter for taking the drug whuile 12% deduced that taking the drug made academic work more interesting (Webb, Noar, 2008).
In regards to the small percentage of participants that didn’t equate the motivations for ADHD medication usage to academics, 7% of particpants explained that taking the drug made them more talkative allowed them to stay up longer for social parties (Webb, Noar, 2008). The conclusion of the study in regards to motivation showed that even when academic motivation was the strongest reason for taking the medication, other non-academic reasons were sometimes closely related (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Obtaining Illegal Stimulants
This study included the means in which students obtain illegal stimulants and the ease to do so as interpreted by the students themselves as well as the increased availability and culpability of the users. This is an intense addition to this study as it outlines how these drugs are so easily obtained and why they are so commonly prescribed with the knowledge of outrageous illegal use.
Of the participants that were studied, a confounding 39% of participants regarded the drug as very easy to get, while 43% found it somewhat easy to obtain, 13% said it was somewhat difficult to find the drug and a minimal 1% found it difficult to obtain the drug. Additionally, an astonishing 89% of participants acquired the drug through college acquaintances rather than drug dealers on the street. In conclusion, only a mere 4% of participants actually had a prescription for the ADHD medication from a medical doctor and a few of those particular participants were not sure whether they needed it or not (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Prevention
One of the best aspects of this study is the authors’ comments on the findings and their belief in how to prevent the illegal use of ADHD medication among college students. The authors explore three viable alternatives to the outburst of illegal ADHD medication use. One of these possibilities is targeting the student suppliers of the stimulants. If this is done, it would do away with the supply and demand aspect of AHDH medications. By confining an easily available supply of the drug on college campuses, it would help to reduce usage by students and help prevent students from beginning use. (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Another area of prevention that the authors introduced was education on the illegal use of stimulants. The importance of this goes beyond measure because it empowers the student with the facts of the drug and the causes that may arise. With the benefits and dangerous effects clear to the potential user, it will be possible to make an educated and healthy choice regarding the drug (Webb, Noar, 2008). Moreover, students should be made aware of the illegal nature of using these drugs despite the prescription nature of the medication.
The last proposal for prevention that the authors delegated was the belief that professors should consider limiting demands on college students (Webb, Noar, 2008). With less stress and pressure on the students, focus can be given on the tasks at hand rather than the conception of being perfect. With a more lax schedule and academic demands, students may opt out of dangerous means of enhancing educational endeavors (Webb, Noar, 2008).
The illicit use of ADHD medication is on the rise as a contagion, particularly among college students. The authors of this unique study made an important discovery about the use of these medications from the student’s perspective while marrying this information with numerical statistics. Additionally, the authors of this study chose to use the collected data and interpretations for the purpose of identifying troublesome variables and turn them into a practical solution for prevention. The support and education that was given to the students as well as the inimitable mixed model method of research that was put into practice made this particular study effective and quite necessary for psychological research in the era that we currently live.
References
American Psychological Association, Initials. (2009). Differential effectiveness of
methylphenidate and adderall® in school-age youths with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1999-03138-007.
Aston, M. (2007). Qualitative vs quantitative. Retrieved from
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/Courses/ED690DR/Class01/QvsQ.html.
Burrell, J. (2009). Supergirl epidemic: teenage girls sinking under pressure to be perfect. McClatchy - Tribune News Service, Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1721268761&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Carlson, N. (2005). Foundations of Physiological Psychology (sixth edition). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davis, S. F., & Smith, R. A. (2009). The Psychologist as Detective (fifth edition). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
DeSantis, A., Webb, E., & Noar, S. (2008). Illicit Use of Prescription ADHD
Medications on a College Campus: A Multimethodological Approach. Journal of
American College Health, 57(3), 315-24. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1592649781&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Goodman, T. (1977). Qualitative probability and improper distributions. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39(3), 387-393. Retrieved December 4, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2985100.
Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392366.
Jeannette Villatoro
BKF9454A
Professor Alina Perez
November 30, 2009
Abstract
ADHD has become a rising diagnosis in our nation, specifically among young people. ADHD is characterized by a pattern of disrupting behaviors that can include hyperactivity and inattention (Carlson, 2005). With this rising epidemic of ADHD, an alarming study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of a college campus and subsequently conducted at that college. Results proved that most of the participants surveyed illegally used ADHD medication for academic or social use. Most of the participants were not educated on the effects of the drug with non-prescription use and a majority of the participants failed to understand the consequences of using the drug. This study dared to uncover the truth of ADHD medication use on college campuses, break the stereotypes of the common users of the drug, and try to discover preventive measures to ward of such astonishing drug use among college students.
The Implications of AHDH Medication Use Among College Students
ADHD medication has been noticed recently for being an epidemic leading to abuse among college students without a medical prescription. With the dangerous side effects of the medications along with the vast availability of these medications to those without a viable medical use for it, it has become a major dilemma in society and on college campuses. One particular study utilized qualitative and quantitative research to delve into the depths of ADHD medication use among college students, why and how it is obtained, and through the composed results of the study the authors attempted to uncover means to successfully combat the devastating use of illegal stimulants among young students today.
Background
The authors of this particular study titled Illicit Use of Prescription ADHD Medications on a College Campus: A Multimethodological Approach attempted and successfully proved the perceptions of college students in the matter of ADHD medications as well as the illegal use of such medications (Webb, Noar, 2008). In this research study, qualitative and quantitative research was conducted in the form of surveys, questionnaires, and in-depth interviews. The nature and intent of the study was to assume the reasoning behind illegal usage of ADHD medication and the understanding that the users of the medication may or may not have regarding the effects of the drug.
The importance of this study is plentiful. It highlights illegal drug use among young people today, which is a major concern in society. It focuses on the use of prescription drugs for collegiate matters. As noted by Carlson, “attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is the most common behavior disorder that first appears in childhood” (Carlson, 2005, p. 502). This disorder, most commonly diagnosed among adolescent boys, reflects impulsive behavior and intermittent bursts of rapid responses with brain imaging studies (Carlson, 2005). Adderall is a strong and quick acting drug that is administered to those with ADHD and seems to be the most popular method of controlling the disorder. Adderall, a highly addictive prescription medication for ADHD, is exceedingly prescribed and therefore is quite easily obtained by students who are not intended to use the drug but desire to attain the drug for purposes of the effects (American Psychological Association, 2009).
The authors of this particular study on ADHD medications wanted to discern not just the statistical use of the medications as outlined in previous studies, but the reasons why the stimulants were used and how they were obtained (Webb, Noar, 2008). After all, most studies collected data as to the population of students that use it along with how big the epedimic might be, but the underlying reasons and disturbing facts about the use of ADHD medication was still to be investigated. Quantitative research has certainly given statistics on this troublesome truth about illicit drug use among college students. Furthermore, qualitative research has attempted to reveal the perspective of the students. In one particular qualitative study conducted prior to and separate of the authors study, it was explained that, “students are using Aderall, the ADHD medication that's misused on college campuses to sharpen focus and pump up test-taking ability” (Burrell, J., 2009).
The authors of Illicit Use of Prescription ADHD Medications on a College Campus: A Multimethodological Approach wanted to integrate statistical data with some of the impacting information that can only be acquired from the students themselves. The authors wanted to compile an all-embracing study that made a difference and educed a new understanding of this dilemma. To do this, the authors of the study “examined (1) factors that led to first use of prescription ADHD medications, (2) motives for continued use of these medications, and (3) where and how students access these medications” (Webb, Noar, 2008, p. 2). Many comprehensive approaches such as in-depth interviewing, surveying and questionnaires were exploited by the authors of this study to make sure that all avenues of use and distribution of the stimulants were covered so that a general degree of possible prevention of illegal use of stimulants could be properly assessed (Webb, Noar, 2008). The Institutional Review Board of the college reviewed and accepted the surveys, questionnaires and study methods proposed by the authors of the study (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Research Method
When conducting research for an experiment, it is ethically and scientifically necessary to implement strategies to ensure that threats to validity cannot occur (Davis, Smith, 2009). One of the ways to warrant such a distinction in experimentation that is free from threats is to use a consent form. In this particular experiment regarding ADHD medications among college students, a consent form was given with an extensive outline of the study and the topic of the research for participants to sign and understand (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Whether or not qualitative or quantitative measures are utilized seems to be a major area of interest in the scientific community. According to Aston, quantitative research “argues that both the natural and social sciences strive for testable and confirmable theories that explain phenomena by showing how they are derived from theoretical assumptions” (Aston, M., 2007, p.1). Qualitative research methods, however, “employ an insider's perspective which makes qualitative research an intensely personal and subjective style of research” (Aston, M., 2007, p.1). Both methods are extremely useful and should not be considered as rival methods (Jick, T., 1979). When both methods are executed within one experiment, the benefits of both methods are allowed to flourish and a fusion of numerically verifiable data with hands-on understanding is made.
This particular study regarding ADHD medications among college students utilized both qualitative and quantitative research techniques to bring about a comprehensive mixed model study. In the quantitative design, the authors of this study conducted surveys in two parts. In the first part, surveys were administered in a convenience sampling of 1,340 students in an introductory theory class. The other part was a convenience sampling of an additional 470 students of an upper-level curriculum so that a randomization was effective with a multitude of majors that were selected for the study (Webb, Noar, 2008).
For the qualitative aspect of the study, in-depth interviews were conducted on 175 full-time undergraduate students. Tape recorders were used for transcription and names were replaced with pseudonyms to protect privacy (Webb, Noar, 2008). According to Goodman, “in studying statistics it is sometimes useful to consider improper probability distributions, that is additive measures to the universal event” (Goodman, T., 1977, p. 387). In this particular study outlining illicit ADHD drug use among college students, the authors took careful precaution in making sure that these measures were accounted for. The details of the questions involved were how the student obtained the drugs, how much they knew about the effects, and whether or not they were educated on the drug (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Participants
Studies have shown that illegal stimulant abuse was more common among white and Latino male college students than African American and Asian students (Webb, Noar, 2008). The authors of this particular study wanted to present an equal opportunity to gather statistical analysis and in-depth study on all of the college population. The authors used female and male participants as well as different unique nationalities. They compiled their group of participants by ensuring that different classes were involved as well as different levels of college classman. This would eradicate any variables that could contend this study to be unverifiable or bias in addition to allowing the study to focus on the overall population of students and create a replication study that would prove or disprove the previous findings of common abusers of stimulant drug use (Webb, Noar, 2008). There was no apparent documentation of participants that dropped out of the study or participants that only completed partial areas of the study. Therefore, it seemed to be an inclusive study with considerable results from the participants involved.
Results
The results of the study were staggering with several proportionate measures. The survey results of adderall users were gathered and compared between focus groups. These results were based on the surveys conducted and reflected the use of the drug, motivations for use, and the commonality of use among college students that were studied.
First time use among college students also harbored results and showed that 65% of adderall users without a prescription used other non-prescription stimulants before illegally using ADHD medication (Webb, Noar, 2008). Results were also collected about the understanding that users of ADHD medication had about the side effects of the drug, what it was prescribed for, and the damage it can do when taken without a medical reason.
The authors of the study divided the participants by demographics to understand the proportion of the results better. Of the 708 men that were surveyed, 39% reported illicitly using prescription ADHD stimulants and 61% had not used. Among the 895 women that were surveyed, 266 reported using and 629 reported not using. Concluding the results, it was established that 69% of all participants claiming to have used ADHD medication did so for the first time in a college setting and not outside of school (Webb, Noar, 2008). These results show the urgency of ADHD medication use on a college campus and the alarming rates of illegal use.
Motivations for Taking Illegal ADHD Medications
The authors of this study focused intently on the desire and motivation for students to elicit drug use. Of these motivations, it was captured in this particular research study that most students are motivated by two categories that the study separates as academic reasons and non-academic reasons (Webb, Noar, 2008). Because the drug heightens the senses and ability to focus with stamina, it is a common drug that is easy to find and difficult to stop using. An important factor that was adapted through this study was that “unlike most other illegal substances that these college students took, they did not use stimulants primarily for social or entertainment purposes” (Webb, Noar, 2008, p. 4). This is a huge development when discerning the reasons for ADHD medication use because it showed that 72% of the participants in the study used the drug for getting good grades, staying up late, and to study longer rather than for recreational reasons (Webb, Noar, 2008). Of that 72%, about a third of participants specifically gave a motive of being smarter for taking the drug whuile 12% deduced that taking the drug made academic work more interesting (Webb, Noar, 2008).
In regards to the small percentage of participants that didn’t equate the motivations for ADHD medication usage to academics, 7% of particpants explained that taking the drug made them more talkative allowed them to stay up longer for social parties (Webb, Noar, 2008). The conclusion of the study in regards to motivation showed that even when academic motivation was the strongest reason for taking the medication, other non-academic reasons were sometimes closely related (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Obtaining Illegal Stimulants
This study included the means in which students obtain illegal stimulants and the ease to do so as interpreted by the students themselves as well as the increased availability and culpability of the users. This is an intense addition to this study as it outlines how these drugs are so easily obtained and why they are so commonly prescribed with the knowledge of outrageous illegal use.
Of the participants that were studied, a confounding 39% of participants regarded the drug as very easy to get, while 43% found it somewhat easy to obtain, 13% said it was somewhat difficult to find the drug and a minimal 1% found it difficult to obtain the drug. Additionally, an astonishing 89% of participants acquired the drug through college acquaintances rather than drug dealers on the street. In conclusion, only a mere 4% of participants actually had a prescription for the ADHD medication from a medical doctor and a few of those particular participants were not sure whether they needed it or not (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Prevention
One of the best aspects of this study is the authors’ comments on the findings and their belief in how to prevent the illegal use of ADHD medication among college students. The authors explore three viable alternatives to the outburst of illegal ADHD medication use. One of these possibilities is targeting the student suppliers of the stimulants. If this is done, it would do away with the supply and demand aspect of AHDH medications. By confining an easily available supply of the drug on college campuses, it would help to reduce usage by students and help prevent students from beginning use. (Webb, Noar, 2008).
Another area of prevention that the authors introduced was education on the illegal use of stimulants. The importance of this goes beyond measure because it empowers the student with the facts of the drug and the causes that may arise. With the benefits and dangerous effects clear to the potential user, it will be possible to make an educated and healthy choice regarding the drug (Webb, Noar, 2008). Moreover, students should be made aware of the illegal nature of using these drugs despite the prescription nature of the medication.
The last proposal for prevention that the authors delegated was the belief that professors should consider limiting demands on college students (Webb, Noar, 2008). With less stress and pressure on the students, focus can be given on the tasks at hand rather than the conception of being perfect. With a more lax schedule and academic demands, students may opt out of dangerous means of enhancing educational endeavors (Webb, Noar, 2008).
The illicit use of ADHD medication is on the rise as a contagion, particularly among college students. The authors of this unique study made an important discovery about the use of these medications from the student’s perspective while marrying this information with numerical statistics. Additionally, the authors of this study chose to use the collected data and interpretations for the purpose of identifying troublesome variables and turn them into a practical solution for prevention. The support and education that was given to the students as well as the inimitable mixed model method of research that was put into practice made this particular study effective and quite necessary for psychological research in the era that we currently live.
References
American Psychological Association, Initials. (2009). Differential effectiveness of
methylphenidate and adderall® in school-age youths with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1999-03138-007.
Aston, M. (2007). Qualitative vs quantitative. Retrieved from
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/Courses/ED690DR/Class01/QvsQ.html.
Burrell, J. (2009). Supergirl epidemic: teenage girls sinking under pressure to be perfect. McClatchy - Tribune News Service, Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1721268761&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Carlson, N. (2005). Foundations of Physiological Psychology (sixth edition). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davis, S. F., & Smith, R. A. (2009). The Psychologist as Detective (fifth edition). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
DeSantis, A., Webb, E., & Noar, S. (2008). Illicit Use of Prescription ADHD
Medications on a College Campus: A Multimethodological Approach. Journal of
American College Health, 57(3), 315-24. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1592649781&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Goodman, T. (1977). Qualitative probability and improper distributions. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39(3), 387-393. Retrieved December 4, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2985100.
Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392366.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Design Differences ©
Design Differences
Jeannette Villatoro
BKF9454A
Professor Alina Perez
November 10, 2009
Abstract
Qualitative and quantitative research are fascinating designs that can interpret and articulate a vast majority of interesting psychological topics. The two designs differ greatly in the techniques of measure that are utilized along with the intended principle of the studies being conducted. Although different measures and practices may be in place that separates the two models, similarities in detection make the qualitative and quantitative research methods closely related with the ability to compliment one another with explosive learning opportunities that propels science forward.
Design Differences
Research is an imperatively significant aspect of psychology that allow understanding and new discovery to emerge. Two types of research that may be utilized are the quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative research is based more on the experience of the participant and documenting the findings of the research from the participant’s own view. Qualitative research deals with systematic data that is used to describe the results of a study. While both methods are quite lucrative for the purpose of gathering information, there are many characteristics that exemplify these methods of research. This author will attempt to uncover some of the characteristics underlying these methods of research, the benefits of each method and the contrast between the characteristics that make these methods so unique.
Qualitative research is designated to collect data and observe behavior as it occurs. Because of this facet of qualitative research, a researcher or experimenter can only speculate as to the causation of the experiment whereas qualitative research performs certain methods to try and uncover the actual cause and effect of a certain experiment. While qualitative research depends on the opinions and behaviors of others, quantitative research delves into why these behaviors occur through experimentation or the relationship between variables through descriptive methods (Hopkins, 2000). Since descriptive methods “do not involve the manipulation of an independent variable”, they vary from experimental methods quite intensely (Davis, Smith, 2009, p. 59). Furthermore, qualitative data tends to focus on smaller groups of participants with rich details about each individual. Quantitative research deals with more people and hopes to accomplish a generalization of the populations being examined (Davis, Smith, 2009). Because there are different outcomes that may result from the different research methods, it is important to understand the different ways in which these studies are conducted and how these may differ depending on the nature of the design.
Sampling is a common technique in research that helps discover viable results. Although it is an effective technique, it is very labor intensive (Stevens, 2009). There are various sampling methods that can be utilized in research, dependent on whether it is a qualitative or quantitative study. Usually sampling entails selecting certain groups of individuals from a larger group of people for a research study (Davis, Smith, 2009). Purposeful sampling is a deliberate method of sampling that is used to gain the insight of others on a certain topic of interest. The objective is for a researcher to select “information-rich cases for study in depth” (Patton, 2001). With purposeful sampling, a researcher will choose a select group of individuals based on certain characteristics. These characteristics may include age, sex, income and other variables. However, with quantitative research there is a random selection of people when sampling is done. The reason for random sampling is to ensure that certain variables that cannot be changed will not affect the findings (Davis, Smith, 2009). This is imperative for a quantitative experiment to hold dignity and show validity through its findings. The differences between non-random sampling and random sampling are strong and equate whether quantitative and qualitative research measures are taken to provide comprehensive results.
Another important factor of research is the researcher himself. His involvement and interpretation of the experiment is very valuable and also can even be debilitating depending on which research method is being used. If a researcher is conducting a quantitative experiment, he must be impartial and detached with an objective portrayal (Gleshne, Peshkin, 1992). In essence, while it is important to weed out the extraneous variables that may have a causal relationship with other variables in the experiment, the researcher and his interaction in the study can become an extraneous variable itself with a strong influence. This is something that should be avoided in quantitative experimentations. Any personal or subjective interaction with the participants of the experiment or the experiment itself may lead to contaminated results that are unreliable and cannot be well interpreted by future researchers. In a qualitative research model, however, the researcher is a part of the experiment. He may freely interpret the results while having personal involvement in the study. Although still an observer of sorts, this researcher is allowed partiality and can display “empathetic understanding” (Gleshne, Peshkin, 1992, p. 2) to help shape the direction of both the experiment and the hypothesis that develops. These are strong and impacting differences in the designs of research and help lay a foundation of not only how an experiment is processed, but also how the scientific community receives it. Moreover, a researcher must take certain care that he does not implement certain techniques in a research study that would equate the other design. If a qualitative approach is given in a quantitative research experiment and vice versa, it will damage the study irrevocably.
One last difference between the qualitative and quantitative design is the way research is carried out when considering the design that is used. In a quantitative model of research, control is a major factor that enables the experimenter to attain the variables that may be present and manipulate the experiment to consider and execute those variable to an advantage. A qualitative study will not control the factors in that manner, but rather observe participants in a natural setting along with any variables that are involved. An example of this would be a researcher conducting a quantitative research experiment on the effects of learning in a stressful environment among adult males. This experiment would be performed with a controlled group in which a certain number of people are selected with similar aspects in order to conduct an experiment. A hypothesis is constructed before this experiment takes place with the intent of proving that hypothesis. With a qualitative effort of research, a researcher may simply observe a native village and the people who inhabit it to understand behavior. A hypothesis is formed after the research and built upon the observations that took place.
Quantitative and qualitative research designs are both intricate approaches to scientific discovery. They both have many differences in the nature of the research along with the intended results. Responsibility lies with the researcher who must delegate the proper tools to ensure that the design is carried out in its correct form. Despite the empirical distinctions that are between these designs, there is a shared unity in that they both are used to come closer to a discovery and allow for understanding and definition to take place.
References
Davis, S. F., & Smith, R. A. (2009). The Psychologist as Detective. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An
introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Hopkins, W. (2000). Quantitative research design. Retrieved from
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0001/wghdesign.html.
Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stevens, M. (2009). Selected qualitative methods. Retrieved from
http://symptomresearch.nih.gov/chapter_7/sec4/cmss4pg1.htm.
Jeannette Villatoro
BKF9454A
Professor Alina Perez
November 10, 2009
Abstract
Qualitative and quantitative research are fascinating designs that can interpret and articulate a vast majority of interesting psychological topics. The two designs differ greatly in the techniques of measure that are utilized along with the intended principle of the studies being conducted. Although different measures and practices may be in place that separates the two models, similarities in detection make the qualitative and quantitative research methods closely related with the ability to compliment one another with explosive learning opportunities that propels science forward.
Design Differences
Research is an imperatively significant aspect of psychology that allow understanding and new discovery to emerge. Two types of research that may be utilized are the quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative research is based more on the experience of the participant and documenting the findings of the research from the participant’s own view. Qualitative research deals with systematic data that is used to describe the results of a study. While both methods are quite lucrative for the purpose of gathering information, there are many characteristics that exemplify these methods of research. This author will attempt to uncover some of the characteristics underlying these methods of research, the benefits of each method and the contrast between the characteristics that make these methods so unique.
Qualitative research is designated to collect data and observe behavior as it occurs. Because of this facet of qualitative research, a researcher or experimenter can only speculate as to the causation of the experiment whereas qualitative research performs certain methods to try and uncover the actual cause and effect of a certain experiment. While qualitative research depends on the opinions and behaviors of others, quantitative research delves into why these behaviors occur through experimentation or the relationship between variables through descriptive methods (Hopkins, 2000). Since descriptive methods “do not involve the manipulation of an independent variable”, they vary from experimental methods quite intensely (Davis, Smith, 2009, p. 59). Furthermore, qualitative data tends to focus on smaller groups of participants with rich details about each individual. Quantitative research deals with more people and hopes to accomplish a generalization of the populations being examined (Davis, Smith, 2009). Because there are different outcomes that may result from the different research methods, it is important to understand the different ways in which these studies are conducted and how these may differ depending on the nature of the design.
Sampling is a common technique in research that helps discover viable results. Although it is an effective technique, it is very labor intensive (Stevens, 2009). There are various sampling methods that can be utilized in research, dependent on whether it is a qualitative or quantitative study. Usually sampling entails selecting certain groups of individuals from a larger group of people for a research study (Davis, Smith, 2009). Purposeful sampling is a deliberate method of sampling that is used to gain the insight of others on a certain topic of interest. The objective is for a researcher to select “information-rich cases for study in depth” (Patton, 2001). With purposeful sampling, a researcher will choose a select group of individuals based on certain characteristics. These characteristics may include age, sex, income and other variables. However, with quantitative research there is a random selection of people when sampling is done. The reason for random sampling is to ensure that certain variables that cannot be changed will not affect the findings (Davis, Smith, 2009). This is imperative for a quantitative experiment to hold dignity and show validity through its findings. The differences between non-random sampling and random sampling are strong and equate whether quantitative and qualitative research measures are taken to provide comprehensive results.
Another important factor of research is the researcher himself. His involvement and interpretation of the experiment is very valuable and also can even be debilitating depending on which research method is being used. If a researcher is conducting a quantitative experiment, he must be impartial and detached with an objective portrayal (Gleshne, Peshkin, 1992). In essence, while it is important to weed out the extraneous variables that may have a causal relationship with other variables in the experiment, the researcher and his interaction in the study can become an extraneous variable itself with a strong influence. This is something that should be avoided in quantitative experimentations. Any personal or subjective interaction with the participants of the experiment or the experiment itself may lead to contaminated results that are unreliable and cannot be well interpreted by future researchers. In a qualitative research model, however, the researcher is a part of the experiment. He may freely interpret the results while having personal involvement in the study. Although still an observer of sorts, this researcher is allowed partiality and can display “empathetic understanding” (Gleshne, Peshkin, 1992, p. 2) to help shape the direction of both the experiment and the hypothesis that develops. These are strong and impacting differences in the designs of research and help lay a foundation of not only how an experiment is processed, but also how the scientific community receives it. Moreover, a researcher must take certain care that he does not implement certain techniques in a research study that would equate the other design. If a qualitative approach is given in a quantitative research experiment and vice versa, it will damage the study irrevocably.
One last difference between the qualitative and quantitative design is the way research is carried out when considering the design that is used. In a quantitative model of research, control is a major factor that enables the experimenter to attain the variables that may be present and manipulate the experiment to consider and execute those variable to an advantage. A qualitative study will not control the factors in that manner, but rather observe participants in a natural setting along with any variables that are involved. An example of this would be a researcher conducting a quantitative research experiment on the effects of learning in a stressful environment among adult males. This experiment would be performed with a controlled group in which a certain number of people are selected with similar aspects in order to conduct an experiment. A hypothesis is constructed before this experiment takes place with the intent of proving that hypothesis. With a qualitative effort of research, a researcher may simply observe a native village and the people who inhabit it to understand behavior. A hypothesis is formed after the research and built upon the observations that took place.
Quantitative and qualitative research designs are both intricate approaches to scientific discovery. They both have many differences in the nature of the research along with the intended results. Responsibility lies with the researcher who must delegate the proper tools to ensure that the design is carried out in its correct form. Despite the empirical distinctions that are between these designs, there is a shared unity in that they both are used to come closer to a discovery and allow for understanding and definition to take place.
References
Davis, S. F., & Smith, R. A. (2009). The Psychologist as Detective. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An
introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Hopkins, W. (2000). Quantitative research design. Retrieved from
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0001/wghdesign.html.
Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stevens, M. (2009). Selected qualitative methods. Retrieved from
http://symptomresearch.nih.gov/chapter_7/sec4/cmss4pg1.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
