Self-esteem is the realistic impression one has about him/herself; it can be described as self-respect and can manifest in positive and negative ways, either way having a significant impact on that individual’s social behaviours. There has long been debate as to whether the effects of self-esteem on human behaviour are adaptive or maladaptive. A vast amount of research has demonstrated that self-esteem related behaviour is maladaptive. This research provides insight into observations such as elevated aggression, racism, and bullying tendencies in people who have high self-esteem, as well as depression and anxiety expressed by people with low self-esteem.

            Bushman and Baumeister (2002) made a correlation between violence and a positive bias toward the self, contrary to traditional views which formed a contingency between low self-esteem and negative behaviour. Narcissism can be described as the complete and overwhelming positive perception of oneself, and experimental findings provide evidence that violent offenders score higher on narcissism tests than do non-offenders (Bushman & Baumeister, 2002). These findings further demonstrate that those with strong perceptions of self are more likely to exhibit aggression and violence. Additionally, negative social feedback that conflicts with an individual’s own positive views can be attributed as a trigger of aggression (David & Kistner, 2000). There are generally two types of self-esteem, implicit and explicit. Explicit self-esteem is controlled and deliberately reasoned, whereas implicit self-esteem consists of efficient self-evaluations that occur outside of our control (Jordan, Spencer, Zanna; 2003). Jordan, Spencer, and Zanna (2003) demonstrated that individuals with high explicit and low implicit self-esteem are more likely to protect threatened views of self with the use of ethnic discrimination. Collectively, these aspects of high self-esteem correspond to negative interpersonal interactions, thus supporting the overall maladaptive nature of self-esteem related behaviours.     

            Consistent with the aforementioned, low self-esteem also leads to maladaptive behaviour. O’Moore and Kirkham (2001) discussed the incidence of individuals with low self-esteem being victims of peer bullying. Studies have shown that children of various ages who have been victimized by bullying exhibit less self-esteem than those who have not been bullied; furthermore, evidence shows that self-esteem continues to decrease as the frequency of peer bullying incidents increases (O’Moore and Kirkham, 2001). This evidence also suggests that individuals with lower self-esteem are more likely to be victims of peer bullying. Bully victims also tend to see themselves as being more troublesome, having lower intellectual and school status, being less physically attractive, more anxious, less popular, and more unhappy and dissatisfied compared to non-bully victims (O’Moore and Kirkham, 2001).        

            As a social behaviour, self-esteem has been proven to be maladaptive. Observations such as increased aggression and violence in narcissists, racism and bullying tendencies in people who have high self-esteem, as well as depression and anxiety expressed by people with low self-esteem support this claim. Self-esteem related behaviour, when thought of from an individual standpoint, actually does have some positive qualities; much of this behaviour acts in order to make an individual feel better about him/herself (Jordan, Spencer, Zanna, 2003). However, in doing so, it is also generally aggressive, violent, or discriminatory, and therefore cannot be considered adaptive.

Works Cited
Bushman, B. J. & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 543-545.

 David, C. F. & Kistner, J. A. (2000). Do Positive Self-Perceptions Have  “Dark Side”? Examination of the Link between Perceptual Bias and Aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28(4), 327-337.

 Jordan, C.H., Spencer, S.J., Zanna, M.P. (2003) Types of High Self-Esteem and Prejudice: How Implicit Self-Esteem Relates to Ethnic Discrimination Among High Explicit Self-Esteem Individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 693-702.

O’Moore, M., Kirkham, C. (2001) “Self-Esteem and Its Relationship to Bullying Behaviour” Aggressive behaviour, 27, 269-283.

Drugs and alcohol have very similar effects on the body. Therefore, the word ‘substance(s)’ for our purposes will refer to both alcohol and drugs. Addicts of both substances are generally subjects of classical conditioning, in the sense that they experience conditioned tolerance and conditioned withdrawal. Conditioned tolerance is where certain environmental cues trigger conditioned responses (CR) in the body, before a substance is even administered, in order to help the body cope with the administration of that substance. Conditioned withdrawal occurs when a patient is exposed to these environmental cues, elicits the appropriate CR’s, and then is not administered the substances (O’Brien et.al., 1992). Conditioned withdrawal is common in previously treated patients and is the primary cause of many relapses.

            Classical conditioning is the main method used when trying to extinguish conditioned withdrawal. In classical conditioning of substance abuse, the environment or conditions in which the substance is being taken is the CS, the substance itself is the UCS, and the effects of the substance are the UCR (Conklin et.al., 2002). Using the cue-exposure method patients are shown various types of CR-eliciting stimuli in a controlled environment, such as images, movies, audio and other cues (Conklin et.al., 2002). As CR’s are elicited patients feel conditioned withdrawal and in some cases drug users even experience euphoria. The substance, however, is never administered (O’Brien et.al., 1992). Through many trials the elicited CR gradually becomes less severe and the patient feels fewer withdrawal symptoms. This treatment is very successful in controlled environments, however, after treatment when the patient returns to their native environment they often relapse (O’Brien et.al., 1992). There could be many cues that cause conditioned withdrawal, and the controlled environment is just not able to replicate them effectively. Patients who undergo cue-exposure treatment are also more likely to drop the treatment because they cannot handle the withdrawal (Marlies et.al., 2007). Recently, many researchers have been focusing on the in vivo approach. In this approach, patients in a controlled environment are often exposed to the actual substance, paraphernalia associated with the substance, or may even be administered the substance itself (Conklin et.al., 2002). This more accurately simulates the environmental cues actually experienced by the patient when normally taking the substance. In some cases, conditioning may even occur in the patient’s house or other environments that elicit CR’s (O’Brien et.al., 1992). So far this method of treatment has not proven to be very successful; however, new approaches to this method have been created (Marlies et.al., 2007). One approach is to expose patients to these environmental cues and to coach them with behavioural techniques in order to defeat the withdrawal symptoms. This is a fairly new approach and there are not many statistics on the effectiveness, however it is believed that in time it will be more effective because this method allows environmental cues to be replicated more effectively. Instead of following a general predetermined treatment schedule, certain environments can be modified in order to better accommodate the patient (O’Brien et.al., 1992). As time progresses this technique will become more refined, and hopefully one day it will see high success rates in treating patients who have substance addictions.

Works Cited
Conklin, Cynthia A., and Stephen T. Tiffany. “Applying Extinction Research and Theory to Cue-Exposure Addiction Treatments .” Addiction 97.2 (Feb. 2002): 155-167. Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA. 23 Jan. 2008  <http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00014.x>.  

Marlies, Marissena A., Frankenc, H. Ingmar, Blankenb, Peter, Van Den Brinkc, Wim, and Hendriksb, M. Vincent. “Cue Exposure Therapy for the Treatment of Opiate Addiction: Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 76 (2007): 97-105. Web of Science. 23 Jan. 2008.

O’Brien, Charles P., Anna Rose Childress, A. Thomas McLellan, and Ronald Ehrman. “Classical Conditioning in Drug-Dependant Humans.” The Neurobiology of Drug and Alcohol Addiction. 654 (June 1992): 400-415. Annals of the New York Academy of Science. 23 Jan. 2008.
<http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb25984.x>.

Top-down processing is the process by which our own beliefs and/or expectations guide our perception of a stimulus. Our group has three journal articles that provide strong evidence that top-down processing contributes abundantly to speech perception.

            Cole, Jakimik, and Cooper (1980) did a study consisting of four experiments. The first three were very similar, and demonstrated that prior context affects the perception of word boundaries (Cole et al., 1980).  Participants were told one of two stories that were the context for the line “looking down from the pier they saw the carko on the ferry” (Cole et al., 1980). The first story was about a man sent to the docks to pick up a shipment of goods, and the second story was about two parents that were watching their son drive a jeep onto a ferry. The context of the story affected the perception of the mispronounced word, ‘carko’ (Cole et al., 1980). The former story caused the person to perceive the word ‘cargo’, whereas the latter story caused the person to perceive the words ‘car go’ (Cole et al., 1980). The speed of perception also differed between the two stories; when the context of the story caused the person to expect a single word, such as in the former story, perception was faster (Cole et al., 1980). The latter story consists of the perception of two words, and in this case the person must continue to listen to the sentence in order to put the mispronounced word into context (Cole et al., 1980). This evidence suggests that when we put into context the speech that we are interpreting, our brain makes assumptions of what it will encounter next; in essence this is top-down processing at work (Cole et al., 1980).
            Borsky, Tuller, and Shapiro (1998) demonstrated that prior context plays a role in the categorization of words. In this study lists of words were combined to form sentences that were the context for a target word (Borsky et al., 1998). The target word consisted of two “boundaries”, the word ‘goat’ and the word ‘coat’, as well as many manipulations in between (Borsky et al., 1998). A sentence would be read to the participant, and one of the goat/coat manipulations would be inserted as the target word. The word goat or coat was then shown to the participant on a computer screen, and they were asked to press a ‘yes’ button if it matched the word they heard (congruent trial) or a ‘no’ button if it was different than the word they heard (incongruent trial) (Borsky et al., 1998). During congruent trials, words that were the least manipulated (closest to ‘goat’ or ‘coat’ boundary) had the fastest reaction time and most accurate perception (Borsky et al., 1998). Generally, the more manipulated the target word was the longer the reaction time (Borsky et al., 1998). Our group feels this evidence suggests top-down processing keeps stimuli in context. If a stimulus occurs that does not fit the context of previous stimuli, top-down processing will work to alter the way we perceive the out-of-context stimulus.
            Innovations in neuroimaging technology have allowed us to more fully understand cognitive processes. In the study conducted by Zekveld, Helsenfeld, Festen and Schoonhoven (2006), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to measure the brain activity involved in speech comprehension. While participants were presented different speech stimuli consisting of various degrees of intelligibility (a measure of how well the speech can be understood), fMRI images were captured to study the corresponding active areas of the brain (Zekveld et al., 2006). The study found that when participants are presented with unintelligible speech stimuli, one of the two sections of Broca’s area known as Brodmann area 44 (BA44) becomes highly activated (Zekveld et al., 2006). This finding suggests that Broca’s area, especially BA44, is the area of the brain that is most likely responsible for top-down processing in speech comprehension (Zekveld et al., 2006), and there are copious amounts of other research demonstrating top-down processing in action.

Works Cited
Ronald A. Cole, Jola Jakimik, and William E. Cooper (1980). Segmenting speech into words. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 67, (4), 1323-1332.

Borsky, S., Tuller, B., & Shaprio, L.P. (1998). ‘‘How to milk a coat:” The effects of semantic and acoustic information on phoneme categorization. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103, (5), 2670-2676.

Zekveld, A.A., Heslenfeld, D.J., Festen, J.M., & Schoonhoven, R. (2006). Top-down and
bottom-up processes in speech comprehension. NeuroImage, 32, 1826 – 1836.