Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Hijack hypothesis of drug addiction

Initial suggestions

@U3189442 - K.Ryan: Thanks for tackling this topic. Some initial suggestions:

• Note that there was a previous attempt, so check out that chapter and the feedback on its talk page.
• Check out other related chapters and see how you can build on, link to, and integrate with that work:
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Addiction
  • Category:Motivation and emotion/Book/Neurotransmitters/Dopamine
• What psychological theory(ies) can help to understand? What is the main research in this area?

Let me know if I can do anything else as you go along. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Topic development feedback

The topic development submission has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history for editing changes made whilst reviewing this chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date.

Title The title is correctly worded and formatted The sub-title is correctly worded and formatted I think the "what is the evidence" part in the sub-title is a bit redundant (should still be covered), so I've removed it. Let me know if you want it back. Headings Promising 2-level heading structure Descriptive headings Consider adopting closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings The Overview and Conclusion should not have sub-headings Avoid having sections with only 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings Overview Good - promising Move the scenario to the top, to help engage reader interest Abbreviate scenario Move historical detail into the general introduction to the next section. Replace with an evocative description of the problem and how it links to psychological theory/research. Use single- rather than double-barrelled focus questions Check and correct grammar (e.g., 1950's -> 1950s) Key points Very solid development – key points are well developed for each section, with relevant citations Consider embedding examples/case studies within each main section Promising balance of theory and research Conclusion (the most important section): Hasn't been developed Figure Figures were deleted due to apparent copyright violation. How to embed/upload figures etc. was covered in Tutorial 3, but feel free to ask during drop-in and I can help. Learning feature Promising use of in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters and quiz questions References OK For APA referencing style, check and correct: use hanging indent template initials sometimes missing capitalisation italicisation include all dois where available page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Resources See also OKish - have renamed the section Move external links to the external links section Use sentence casing External links Move external links to this section User page Excellent – used effectively LinkedIn link doesn't work Link provided to book chapter (make is more obvious) Social contribution Use a numbered list (see Tutorial 02) 3 indirect talk page links If adding the second or subsequent link to a page, create a direct link like / Add direct links to evidence. To do this: View the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and then use this website address as a direct link to evidence for listing on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions. Also make direct improvements and communicate via discussion forum and/or Twitter

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Minor suggestions

Hi @U3189442 - K.Ryan: I enjoyed reading your chapter. Most people would know that drugs can be addictive, but not necessarily why beyond that they produce pleasurable feelings.

I just have a minor suggestion that you use a different colour for your focus questions and your case study/scenario. To me, different colours help indicate that each focus box is providing a different kind of information. This would be especially relevant if you decide to add another scenario in later.

I've also made some minor edits and clarification callouts on your page. In particular, it looks like you're missing references for some of the factual claims you have made throughout. Finally, make sure to order your entire reference list alphabetically prior to submission and check that it follows all APA7 requirements (e.g., italicisation) --U3213682 (discuss • contribs) 03:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Book chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall Overall, this is an excellent chapter. It successfully uses psychological theory and research to address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem. Move non-peer reviewed links into the external links section or replace with embedded Wikiversity or Wikipedia links For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Well developed Engages reader interest by introducing a case study and/or scenario with an image in a feature box Clearly explains the problem or phenomenon Clear focus questions Theory An excellent range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Build more strongly on other related chapters (e.g., by embedding links to other chapters) Insightful depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) No use of tables and/or lists are to help clearly convey key theoretical information Key citations are well used Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Very good review of relevant research More detail about key studies would be ideal Any systematic reviews or meta-analyses in this area? Greater emphasis on effect sizes could be helpful. Excellent/Very good/Good/Basic/Insufficient critical thinking about relevant research is evident Critical thinking about research could be further evidenced by: describing the methodology (e.g., sample, measures) in important studies discussing the direction of relationships considering the strength of relationships acknowledging limitations pointing out critiques/counterarguments suggesting specific directions for future research Claims are referenced Integration Excellent integration between theory and research Conclusion Excellent summary and conclusion Key points are well summarised Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is excellent Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences. Use 3rd person perspective (e.g., "it") rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you") perspective[1] in the main text, although 1st or 2nd person perspective can work well for case studies or feature boxes Layout The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see tags) Grammar, spelling, and proofreading are excellent APA style Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Figures Figures are well captioned (links removed - pictures are already hyperlinked) Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text Citations are not in full APA style (7th ed.). For example: Do not include author first name or initials References are not in full APA style. For example: Check and correct use of capitalisation[2] Separate page numbers using an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) Include hyperlinked dois Learning features Good use of learning features Basic use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text even more interactive. See example. No use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project. Use in-text interwiki links, rather than external links, per Tutorial 02 Move links to non-peer-reviewed sources to the external links section Very good use of image(s) No use of table(s) Basic use of feature box(es) Good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s) Basic use of case studies or examples Excellent use of interwiki links in the "See also" section Use sentence casing Excellent use of external links in the "External links" section Social contribution ~3 logged social contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Question

Does temporal discounting not play a part? We cannot maximize anticipated reward infinitely far into the future and so everyone prefers near-term 'reward' to some extent. I'm surprised that I don't see this brought up more often, as it seems to factor largely in any instance where a behavior is beneficial in the short term but ultimately detrimental. Why finance a new car if you can save for one and drive your old one or use another form of transportation? The principle seems the same. I suspect your typical addict is "made" well before they actually start using. If that's the case, sentences like "The hijack hypothesis suggests that addiction arises from an imbalance in neurotransmitters caused by drug-induced alterations in the brain's reward circuitry." would be somewhat poorly worded because those changes would be an effect rather than a cause, unless one takes an extremely narrow and clinical view of addiction. Would one start using any "recreational drug" in the first place if not for temporal discounting? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 04:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Multimedia presentation feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's UCLearn site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.

Overall Overall, this is a basic presentation The presentation is over the maximum time limit — content beyond 3 mins is ignored for marking and feedback purposes Overview An opening slide with the title is displayed and narrated. Also display and narrate the sub-title — this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. Create an engaging introduction to hook audience interest Establish a context for the presentation (e.g., by using an example or explaining why it is important), to help the viewer understand Focus questions and/or an outline of topics are presented Content Comments about the book chapter may also apply to this section The presentation addresses the topic There is too much content, in too much detail, presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to cover a small amount of well-targetted content than a large amount of poorly selected content. The presentation makes very good use of relevant psychological theory The presentation makes good use of relevant psychological research The presentation includes citations to support claims Use APA style for citations The presentation makes basic use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice Conclusion The Conclusion did not fit within the time limit Audio The presentation makes reasonably good use of narrated audio Slow down and leave longer pauses between sentences. This will help viewers to cognitively digest the spoken information as it is being presented, before moving on to the next point. Sometimes "people" is a better word than "individuals" Reasonably good intonation Audio recording quality was OK. Review microphone set-up to achieve higher recording quality. Probably an on-board microphone was used (e.g., keyboard and/or mouse clicks were audible). Consider using an external microphone. The narrated content is well matched to the target topic (see content) Video Overall, visual display quality is reasonably good The presentation makes basic use of text and image based slides Some of the font size could be larger to make it easier to read The visual communication is supplemented in a basic way by images and/or diagrams The presentation is well produced using simple tools Hide the audio icon The visual content is well matched to the target topic (see content) Meta-data The chapter title is used, but the sub-title (or a shortened version of it) is not used, as the name of the presentation. The sub-title (or an abbreviation of the sub-title that fits within the 100 character limit) would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. A very brief written description of the presentation is provided. Expand. Links to and from the book chapter are provided An inactive hyperlink to the book chapter is provided because the YouTube user account does not yet have access to advanced features Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are not provided A copyright license for the presentation is not provided

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)