http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01741/full?
- 1Department of Sport Science, Sport Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
- 2Sport and Exercise Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
The Editorial on the Research Topic
Using Substances to Enhance Performance: A Psychology of Neuroenhancement
Using Substances to Enhance Performance: A Psychology of Neuroenhancement
Within the scientific community and among the general
public there exists a lively debate regarding the use of drugs for the
enhancement of cognitive performance. The defining feature of this type
of functional substance (ab)use behavior is the assumed functionality a user ascribes to a chosen substance for the intended goal (e.g., Wolff and Brand, 2013; Wolff et al., 2014).
According to this behavioral approach, such Neuroenhancement (NE)
behavior is best understood as a goal-directed behavior that should be
investigated with research that is informed by psychological theorizing.
Since there is currently a lack of such research, this research topic
sets out to address this gap.
An important step to advance our understanding of NE is
to integrate the normative ethical debate on NE with the actual
empirical evidence (Forlini and Hall). In the topics first contribution, Forlini and Hall argue that the ethical debate on the ought of NE (what should be done) is pursued almost entirely in isolation of what actually is the case. Forlini and Hall
conclude that the current ethical discussion is based upon false
assumptions. Namely the assumptions that NE substances have large
positive effects on performance and that NE is highly prevalent. Added
to these false assumptions is a lack of understanding of the
psychological factors that play a role in the NE decision (Forlini and Hall).
In their comparative review of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological products for NE purposes, Caviola and Faber underline the first point of Forlini and Hall's
analysis: Pharmacological means of performance enhancement (e.g.,
Methylphenidate, Modafinil) do not reliably outperform
non-pharmacological ones (e.g., sleep) in terms of effectiveness.
However, pharmacological means are perceived as unacceptable compared
with non-pharmacological methods of performance enhancement. Faber et al.'s
quantitative study indicates that the single strongest predictor of how
unacceptable one evaluates NE to be is the perceived unfairness of such
behavior. Thus, although no differences in effectiveness exist,
pharmacological methods of NE are evaluated less positively.
The second point of Forlini and Hall's
analyses referred to the implied high overall prevalence of NE.
However, so far, NE prevalence has mostly been investigated in student
populations. In an attempt to broaden this scope, two contributions have
investigated NE prevalence outside the academic context (Dietz et al.; Sattler and Schunck). Focused on readers of a German economic newspaper, Dietz et al. found that the lifetime prevalence for lifestyle drugs NE (i.e., freely available over the counter products like Red Bull®)
and illicit or prescription drugs NE was 88 and 19%, respectively.
Although their sample was non-representative, these results show that NE
is not merely a phenomenon among university students. Analyzing data
from a representative sample of German employees, Sattler and Schunck found a considerably lower lifetime prevalence of 2.96% for prescription drugs NE. This finding aligns well with Forlini and Hall's claim that the ethical debate overstates the actual prevalence of NE.
As we have written elsewhere (Wolff et al., 2014) and in accordance with the analysis of Forlini and Hall,
the NE debate lacks theory-driven research on the psychological drivers
of NE. The remaining contributions have addressed this issue from
different angles.
In their research perspective, Englert and Wolff
carve out the relationship between NE and self-control: NE can be
understood as an act of self-control that might lead to positive
(performance enhancement) or negative (health issues) consequences. The
postulate that NE represents a form of self-regulation is consistent
with the behavioral approach to NE and is supported by the contributions
of Jensen et al. and Vargo and Petróczi. In their qualitative study, Jensen et al.
compared the stress and coping patterns of NE users and non-users. They
found that users applied avoidant coping strategies until stress levels
were unbearable. As a last resort, users then switched to the “problem
focused” approach of using drugs to fulfill university requirements (Jensen et al.). Similarly, in their qualitative study, Vargo and Petróczi found that NE is used to “satisfy adaptive needs related to their work and academic demands (p. 10).” These contributions (Englert and Wolff; Jensen et al.; Vargo and Petróczi)
again showcase the importance of a behavioral approach to NE that
focuses on the means-end relationship represented by NE behavior.
However, the contributions by Jensen et al. and Vargo and Petróczi
also report that NE use seems to be more associated with a feeling of
needing to catch up. This is opposed to the implicit notion of most NE
definitions which suggest that NE is aimed at achieving superior
performance.
In their research perspective, Zelli et al.
outline a social cognitive approach that builds upon the already much
more developed—and conceptually similar—field of research on doping in
sports. Indeed, concepts and methodologies from this domain might well
be transferable to the NE domain. For example, so called indirect
measures of implicit attitudes have successfully been used in social
science research on doping (Brand et al., 2014).
Since NE, like doping, appears to be a socially sensitive topic and
since implicit measures are less prone to faking, these measures are
particularly promising for NE research as well. Part of the validation
process of such measures is to understand the cortical processes that
contributed to an implicit attitude score. In their contribution, Schindler and Wolff use Electroencephalography (EEG) to investigate the degree of implicitness that is likely to be reflected in an indirect measure of implicit attitudes toward performance enhancing substances.
The contributions of Sattler and Schunck, Brand et al., and Brand and Koch
apply well-established psychological theories to NE. Sattler and
Schunck's study uses the Five Factor Model of Personality and shows that
NE users display lower values on conscientiousness, and higher values
on neuroticism, compared with non-users. Brand et al.
apply Drug Instrumentalization Theory in an attempt to broaden the view
on the behavioral basis of functional substance (ab)use behaviors:
Individuals can use a variety of substances (e.g., prescription drugs,
illicit drugs) as instruments to achieve a variety of different goals
(e.g., overcoming fatigue, facilitating social interactions). Their
empirical study indicates that university students consistently use one
type of drug (e.g., prescription drugs) as a means to achieve a variety
of goals (as opposed to a more specialized approach of using specific
drugs for specific goals). Finally, Brand and Koch
use the Prototype-Willingness model to predict the willingness and
intentions to use NE. In addition, they show that the theoretical links
between attitudes and NE intentions was weakened when participants were
given false (high) prevalence information. This finding brings us back
to the point made by Forlini and Hall:
A normative ethical debate that is disconnected from empirical evidence
and which implies an overly high NE prevalence is problematic. Brand and Koch's
results indicate that such a public discussion (building upon false
premises) can, in turn, have repercussions on individuals' intentions
regarding NE use.
The contributions in this research topic offer various
distinctive angles on the phenomenon of NE: Engaging in ethical
considerations with a focus on psychological processes will hopefully
lead to better alignment between normative ethical debates and empirical
evidence. Research perspectives have the potential to catalyze further
theory-driven research. Qualitative approaches and research using
neuroscientific methodology represent two distant points on the
continuum of possible ways to understand the NE phenomenon. These
different approaches can, respectively, offer either a wide, holistic
perspective or a narrow, specific perspective on a phenomenon. Finally,
using empirical tests based on psychological theories to differentiate
users from non-users or to predict future use will hopefully prove to be
a further step toward a better understanding of the psychological
drivers of NE. We believe these different perspectives can mutually
benefit each other and inform further, much needed research on NE
behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment