Introduction to caffeine as a psychoactive substance
Question:
Discuss About The Effects Caffeine Reaction Anxiety Attitude?
Psychology and neuroscience have in the past concentrated at an early stage inspiration and its connection to addiction, endeavoring to comprehend why a man chooses to embrace one sort of conduct regardless of whether it might wind up noticeably impulsive and unsafe. Caffeine is one of these substances that can trigger a compulsion. Caffeine is a psychoactive substance which works by restraining the activity of a neurotransmitter, the adenosine, exhibit all through the body. Despite the fact that caffeine is connected to coffee which it takes its name, this alkaloid found in an assortment of items. Chocolate and tea contain and is found in extensive amounts in plants, for example, kola nut, guarana and yerba mate (Dijkstra, Pieterse, & Pruyn, 2008). There are additionally in different soda pops (particularly colas) and additionally in a few medications, including painkillers and medications to soothe the manifestations of colds and influenza.
Its impacts on the performance of an individual are different: caffeine would decrease response time and enhance singular exhibitions and accordingly reassuring the person to ingest caffeine to keep response times to the most elevated conceivable level (Addicott & Laurienti, 2009). In this way, caffeine can be considered as an innovative prompting prize and which can make reliance on a pretty much medium-term (Alpert, 2012).
Terry Robinson and Kent Berridge have endeavored to build up a hypothesis of dependence called the Incentive Sensitization Theory of Addiction by which rehashed presentation of the sensory system to addictive medications, for example, caffeine, may cause motivating force sharpening (Schliep, Schisterman, & Mumford, 2012). This term portrays an adjustment in the properties of the motivational procedures that underlie sedate chasing and medication taking (Penolazzi, Natale, Leone, & Russo, 2012). It is in this manner critical to comprehend whether caffeine enhances the execution of an individual, inciting then a sentiment delight.
The reason for this examination is to determine whether caffeine really influences response time and the trial theory that has been tried is that caffeine decreases response time. This is a directional theory since it demonstrates a bearing between the two factors of the speculation, to be specific caffeine and response time. The invalid theory is that caffeine has no impact on the response time and response time is the same with or without caffeine ingestion. The independent factor is the measure of caffeine given to the participants in the study, which is dependably the same, and the response (dependent) variable is the measure of response time by the participants in response to an online test given to them.
Incentive Sensitization Theory of Addiction
This study sought to test three hypothesis. The hypothesis tested are as follows;
For the effect of caffeine on the reaction time we had;
H0: There is no significant relationship between caffeine intake and reaction time
HA: There is significant relationship between caffeine intake and reaction time
For the effect of caffeine on the general anxiety scores we had;
H0: There is no significant relationship between caffeine intake and general anxiety scores
HA: There is significant relationship between caffeine intake and general anxiety scores
Lastly for the effect of caffeine on the attitude scores we had;
H0: There is no significant relationship between caffeine intake and attitude scores
HA: There is significant relationship between caffeine intake and attitude scores
This investigation quantitatively investigated the habits of caffeine consumption, expectations, general anxiety and attitude among a selected sample of undergraduate students. The advantages of a quantitative analysis incorporate the capacity to critically describe the phenomena and investigate the quality and dependability of connections between the phenomena (Polit and Beck, 2012). In order to get a large pool of participants, convenience sampling method was used.
One hundred participants who were all adults (42 females, 58 males) aged between the ages of 18 and 30 (mean age = 23.1) participated in this study. We did not have any exclusionary criteria for the participants in this study; however though, all participants were required to be healthy in order to participant. The independent variable was the uptake or non-uptake of caffeine; that is, there were two groups i.e. those who took caffeine and those who did not take caffeine. The participants were required to sign an informed consent indicating that they are willing and aware of the study. The participants did not receive any form of compensation from the researcher.
Participants were required to take coffee that had caffeine. Coffee was prepared and each cup had approximately 100mg of caffeine. Online test was prepared where participants-whether took coffee or not had to take an online test and their reaction times noted.
The recruited participants were encouraged to come and take coffee at any interval they would wish. The researcher only recorded the number of times the participant took coffee. Each cup of coffee had approximately 100mg of caffeine. Maximum number of cups taken by the participants was 4 cups (equivalent to 400 mg of caffeine). Out of those recruited, there are those who did not turn up to take coffee the whole day. At the end of the day the participants were required to take an online test where their reaction time to the test was monitored and recorded. The general anxiety and attitude scores of the participants were also taken.
Purpose of the study and hypothesis tested
First we looked at the descriptive (summary) statistics of the data. As can be seen in table 1 below, the average age of the participants was 23.1 years old. The average number of cups taken by the participants was 2.01 cups (equivalent to 201 mg of caffeine). The standard deviation shows that the data are not widely spread out for all the variables of the data. Skewness showed that the data are close to being normally distributed.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
|
Age |
Gender |
Cups of coffee taken in a day |
General anxiety score |
Attitude score |
Reaction time |
|
|
Mean |
23.10 |
1.58 |
2.01 |
10.86 |
65.88 |
108.39 |
|
Standard Error |
0.31 |
0.05 |
0.14 |
0.61 |
1.64 |
3.28 |
|
Median |
23.00 |
2.00 |
2.00 |
11.00 |
63.50 |
106.00 |
|
Mode |
24.00 |
2.00 |
1.00 |
15.00 |
60.00 |
157.00 |
|
Standard Deviation |
3.13 |
0.50 |
1.44 |
6.14 |
16.42 |
32.80 |
|
Sample Variance |
9.81 |
0.25 |
2.07 |
37.66 |
269.72 |
1075.55 |
|
Kurtosis |
-0.65 |
-1.93 |
-1.35 |
-1.21 |
-1.09 |
-1.24 |
|
Skewness |
0.15 |
-0.33 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.17 |
-0.06 |
|
Range |
12.00 |
1.00 |
4.00 |
21.00 |
59.00 |
107.00 |
|
Minimum |
18.00 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
40.00 |
53.00 |
|
Maximum |
30.00 |
2.00 |
4.00 |
21.00 |
99.00 |
160.00 |
|
Sum |
2310 |
158 |
201 |
1086 |
6588 |
10839 |
|
Count |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene’s tests were used to test for normality and equal variance respectively. Results showed that none of them was violated. Table 2 and 3.
Table 2: Tests of Normality
|
Kolmogorov-Smirnova |
Shapiro-Wilk |
|||||
|
Statistic |
df |
Sig. |
Statistic |
df |
Sig. |
|
|
Cups of coffee taken in a day |
.169 |
100 |
.000 |
.883 |
100 |
.000 |
|
General anxiety score |
.106 |
100 |
.008 |
.951 |
100 |
.001 |
|
Attitude score |
.083 |
100 |
.083 |
.958 |
100 |
.003 |
|
Reaction time |
.104 |
100 |
.009 |
.942 |
100 |
.000 |
|
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction |
Table 3: Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
|
F |
df1 |
df2 |
Sig. |
|
. |
97 |
2 |
0.085 |
|
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. |
|||
|
a. Design: Intercept + coffee_cups + Anxiety + Attitude + coffee_cups * Anxiety + coffee_cups * Attitude + Anxiety * Attitude + coffee_cups * Anxiety * Attitude |
Since all the underlying assumptions were established to be true and not violated by the data, a MANOVA test was performed to investigate the effects on caffeine on reaction time, general anxiety and attitude.
Overall findings showed that there was significant effect of the caffeine on the combined dependent variables F(4, 96) = 8.49, p = 0.000, .
Analysis of individual dependent variables however showed that one of the dependent variables had insignificant effect with regard to caffeine intake. The caffeine intake had insignificant effect on the general anxiety score F(1, 98) = 0.245, p = 0.622, . That is, the general anxiety scores are not in any influenced by whether an individual took caffeine or not. However, caffeine was found to have statistically significant effect with the attitude and reaction time of the participants F(1, 98) = 14.18, p = 0.000, and F(1, 98) = 8.96, p = 0.003, respectively). The participants who did not take caffeine reported significantly lower (i.e. more active) reaction time (M = 84.75, SD = 22.74) than those who had taken caffeine (M = 108.18, SD = 33.04).
On the other hand, those who had not consumed caffeine reported significantly higher scores for the attitude values (M = 77.50, SD = 15.21) as compared to those who had taken caffeine (M = 62.98, SD = 15.48). This shows that those who have not taken caffeine have good or better attitude than those who have taken caffeine.
Results of this study found out that indeed the uptake of caffeine has some significant effect on the reaction time, the general anxiety of those who take it and their attitude. Those who take caffeine tend to have lower attitude scores as compared to those who do not take caffeine. Similarly, we found out that the reaction time for those who take caffeine was lower than that of those who do not take caffeine.
The results are also very much consistent with the findings in studies related to caffeine, as well as to the general anxiety scores and the attitude scores.
The results of this study can however not be taken as conclusive as they are since some bias might be in the data as a result of unforeseen confounders that might influence the validity of the results. To overcome this, future study should consider randomization of the participants and introduce a placebo as a control effect.
Conclusion
Caffeine is thought to have a number of adverse effects (either negative or positive) on its consumers. This study sought to investigate the effect of caffeine on the consumer’s reaction time, their general anxiety score and attitude scores. To test this, a sample of 100 students was included in the study where we had those who did not take caffeine representing the control group while those who took caffeine represented the treatment group. 42 females, 58 males aged between the ages of 18 and 30 (with a mean age of 23.1 years old) participated in this study.
Results showed that the reaction times significantly vary among those who take caffeine and those who don’t take it. We found out that the reaction time is higher among those who don’t take caffeine and lower among those who take large amounts of caffeine. On the other hand, results showed that those who had not consumed caffeine had significantly higher scores for the attitude values as compared to those who had taken caffeine. There was however no significant relationship between taking caffeine and the general anxiety scores.
References
Addicott, M. A., & Laurienti, P. J. (2009). A comparison of the effects of caffeine following abstinence and normal caffeine use. Psychopharmacology, 207, 423- 431.
Alpert, P. T. (2012). The health lowdown on caffeine. Home Health Care Management & Practice. 24(3), 156-158.
Penolazzi, B., Natale, V., Leone, L., & Russo, P. (2012). Individual differences affecting caffeine intake: Analysis of consumption behaviours for different times of day and caffeine sources. Appetite, 58, 971-977.
Schliep, K. C., Schisterman, E. F., & Mumford, S. L. (2012). Caffeinated beverage intake and reproductive hormones among premenopausal women in the BioCycle Study. American Journal of Clinical Nursing, 95(3), 488-497.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
