4.3.10 - Risk factors in the development of addiction
Risk factors change the probability of addiction but do not identify a single cause or destiny. You will examine genetic vulnerability, personality, family influence and local social context, considering how access, modelling, stress and impulsivity may interact. Twin, adoption and correlational evidence supports evaluation of shared environments, measurement, protective factors and why different routes can lead to similar addictive patterns.
Risk and protective factors
This AQA topic is about risk factors in the development of addiction. A risk factor is not necessarily an established cause. It increases the probability that addiction may develop, especially when it combines with other vulnerabilities, but it does not make addiction inevitable.
Risk factor
An internal or external influence that increases the likelihood of an outcome, such as addiction, without guaranteeing that the outcome will happen.
Protective factor
An influence that reduces the likelihood of a negative outcome, such as supportive relationships, clear boundaries, coping skills or low access to addictive substances.
For the updated 2025 AQA specification, organise the lesson into three required routes:
| Risk-factor route | Core AO1 idea | The non-deterministic version |
|---|---|---|
| Genetic vulnerability | Inherited differences may affect reward, metabolism, impulsivity or sensitivity to substances. | Genes increase susceptibility; they do not force someone to become addicted. |
| Personality | Traits such as impulsivity, sensation seeking or negative urgency may increase experimentation and repeated use. | There is no single "addictive personality". Traits are risk markers, not fixed destinies. |
| Social influences | Family, peers, norms, access and modelling can make substance use or addictive behaviour more likely. | Social contexts shape opportunity and learning, but people can resist, leave or be protected by other influences. |
The 2025 wording matters. AQA no longer lists stress, family influences and peers as separate named bullet points; these are now gathered under social influences. You can still use family, peer norms or stressful social contexts as examples, but make clear that they are examples of the wider social route.
Determinism
The view that behaviour is caused by forces outside a person's control. In this topic, a deterministic error would be claiming that genes, personality or peers make addiction unavoidable.
A biological family history is a clue to possible inherited vulnerability, not proof of it: biological relatives may also share homes, access and learned routines. An adoption comparison is useful because it separates some inherited links from the rearing environment. Likewise, acting impulsively is a personality clue, and friends normalising use is a social clue. In each case, explain the pathway from the detail to increased risk rather than diagnosing addiction from the clue alone.
Genetic vulnerability
Inherited variation can alter vulnerability, while exposure and environment shape whether addiction develops.
Genetic vulnerability
An inherited predisposition that makes a person more susceptible to an outcome, such as addiction, without making that outcome inevitable.
Genes can affect addiction risk in several ways. They may influence how rewarding a substance feels, how quickly a drug is metabolised, how sensitive the dopamine reward system is, or whether a person is more prone to impulsive behaviour. Modern genetics does not support the idea of a single "addiction gene". Substance use disorders are better understood as polygenic.
Polygenic
Influenced by many genes or genetic variants, usually with each variant making a small contribution to overall vulnerability.
Heritability
A population estimate of how much variation in a trait or disorder is associated with genetic differences within that population. It does not mean that a fixed percentage of one person's addiction is caused by genes.
Verhulst, Neale and Kendler (2015) carried out a meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies of alcohol use disorder. They estimated the heritability of alcohol use disorder at about 0.49, with a smaller shared-environment contribution. This is evidence that genetic differences matter, but it also leaves substantial room for non-genetic influences.
Kendler et al. (2012) provide an exam-useful adoption study. They followed 18,115 Swedish adoptees and linked registry data for biological and adoptive relatives. Adopted children with a biological parent who had drug abuse had a higher later risk of drug abuse themselves. The study also found that genetic risk and adverse adoptive-home risk interacted, meaning a high-risk environment was especially harmful for adoptees with higher genetic vulnerability.
AO1 conclusion: genetic vulnerability is a risk factor because inherited differences can make addiction more likely, especially when the person is exposed to substances, high-conflict environments, low monitoring or substance-using peers.
AO3 precision: adoption and twin studies are useful because they help separate genetic and rearing-environment influences. However, they are natural studies. They cannot randomly allocate genes or families, and registry-based definitions of "drug abuse" may miss less visible addiction. The best conclusion is interactionist: genes affect vulnerability, but environment affects whether vulnerability is expressed.
Worked interpretation: family resemblance
Suppose drug problems are more common among adoptees whose biological relatives have recorded drug problems than among other adoptees. They did not grow up with those biological relatives, so copying a biological parent's everyday use is a less plausible explanation of the association. Inherited vulnerability becomes more plausible. It is still an inference: prenatal influences, non-random placement and the way records identify problems can affect the result. The finding supports a genetic contribution without showing that every high-risk adoptee develops addiction, or that the rearing home is irrelevant.
Personality risk
Personality risk factors are stable tendencies in how a person usually thinks, feels and behaves. They can affect addiction by changing how likely someone is to try a substance, how strongly they seek reward, how well they inhibit behaviour, or how they cope with distress.
Impulsivity
A tendency to act quickly without enough thought about consequences. In addiction, impulsivity may increase experimentation, risky use and difficulty stopping.
Sensation seeking
A tendency to seek novel, intense or exciting experiences. In addiction, it may increase exposure to high-risk situations or substances.
Negative urgency
A tendency to act rashly when experiencing strong negative emotion, such as anxiety, anger or shame.
There is no single personality profile shared by everyone with addiction. Some traits are associated with increased risk, but a trait is neither a diagnosis nor a moral judgement. Impulsivity can make an immediate reward more influential than a delayed cost. Sensation seeking can increase opportunities to try a substance. Negative urgency concerns rash responses specifically during distress, so it should not be inferred merely because someone feels sad.
These traits can operate through several pathways:
| Trait | How it can increase risk | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Impulsivity | The person acts before considering long-term consequences. | Taking pills at a party without checking what they are. |
| Sensation seeking | The person seeks intense reward or novelty. | Trying stronger substances because ordinary social activities feel dull. |
| Negative urgency | The person uses substances to escape intense negative emotion. | Drinking heavily after an argument to shut down distress. |
| Low conscientiousness | The person struggles with planning, self-control or following rules. | Ignoring limits they previously set for gambling or vaping. |
AO3 caution: much personality evidence is correlational. Impulsivity may increase the chance of substance use, but repeated substance use can also increase impulsive behaviour, damage self-control and alter mood. This creates a direction-of-causation problem. The strongest answers say personality is a vulnerability factor and may also be changed by addiction.
AO2 example: Noah often makes quick decisions when angry and rarely plans ahead. When friends offer him cocaine, he takes it immediately because he wants the excitement and does not think about consequences. A personality-risk answer would apply impulsivity, sensation seeking and possibly negative urgency, while still avoiding the claim that Noah is "the type" who must become addicted.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account