The abstinence model and harm reduction model are both effective options for treating addiction. The methods used in these models can overlap. Arguments can be posed regarding the benefits of both models, but the harm reduction model is the better choice. This option is more logical and seems to be built for success.
The harm reduction model focuses on reducing the risk of using addictive substances. While the abstinence model requires addicts to completely stop using the addictive substance, harm reduction utilizes several methods of decreasing substance use. This model replaces harmful substances with less dangerous ones. Needle exchange programs and other such strategies are also part of the harm reduction model. Harm reduction does not enforce immediate sobriety. This is likely easier for addicts to adapt to. While harm reduction can lead into abstinence, which forces addicts to admit that they rely on the substance and are unable to control it, harm reduction methods are less intense and cause less damage to the self-esteem of addicts. For this reason, I would recommend the harm reduction model to a loved one with an addiction.
My study habits are fairly successful in most instances. I generally reread notes and repeat them. In some cases, I rewrite notes in order to better remember them. I also study sections of the textbook which are covered on the test. I usually study for several hours throughout the week. These methods of study are effective and result in decent grades. The first psych exam was an exception to this.
I used the study methods mentioned above to prepare for the psych exam. They were not effective at all. I will need to study differently for the next exam. I will study for longer periods of time. I will rewrite key points. I did not do this for the first test. I will read the textbook multiple times to better understand the material. I will put more effort into studying theorists, as most of my incorrect answers on the exam occurred in the matching section. I will also read the How to Study guide on canvas. Hopefully, I will be more prepared for the next exam.
- What were the strengths of the research design?
The research design allowed us to prove that it is difficult to differentiate between Coke and Pepsi.
2. What were the limitations of the research design?
Some people had previous bias toward a certain soda. The tasters could have been influenced by others in the room. There was also no controlled variable between the tests.
3. What potential confounding variables were present in the study?
A confounding variable in this study is previous experience with the sodas.
4. Was the conclusion we drew valid? Why or why not?
The conclusion we drew was valid because the majority of tasters were unable to differentiate between the sodas.
5. What are 5 specific changes you would make to the research design to improve the study?
I would put each taster in a separate room. I would have the tasters wait a longer period of time before the next trial. I would also have a control, such as water, in between trials. I would make sure the tasters had multiple previous experiences with both sodas before beginning. I would have more than five trials.
I watched a Mythbusters video for this post. The video is called “Mythbusters Cell Phone Use vs. Drunk Driving.” It answers the question ,”Is talking on the phone while driving as dangerous as driving drunk?”
The Mythbusters prove that taking phone calls while driving is equally as, if not more than, dangerous as driving drunk. They execute two tests in which they talk on the phone while driving and two tests in which they drive after drinking. All of the tests are failed due to distractions. The phone calls cause the Myhtbusters to lose focus on the road while they answer the person on the other line. The alcohol causes them to miss stop signs and hit traffic cones.
The Mythbusters could have performed more tests on this subject. While the results of the four tests are conclusive, more experiments could cause them to vary and provide insight into which distraction is more dangerous. Only two people test driving while on the phone and driving while drunk. Executing the tests with multiple people could change the outcome, as one distraction may affect certain people more than others.
Though the Mythbusters run a small amount of tests in the video, they succeed in proving that driving while talking on the phone is as dangerous as driving while drunk.
I took this class because I did not take psychology in high school. I do not have any background in psychology. The word “psychology” relates to processes which take place in the brain. The three most interesting topics are The Brain: Micro-level, The Brain: Macro-Level, and Emotion because they cover important aspects of the brain and the unconscious. The three least interesting topics are Why Research Design Matters, Power of Experiments, and Power of the Situation because I find research to be boring. A question I want to answer by the end of this class is “How do unconscious processes work?”