imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (89 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == '''[[Food reward]]''' ==
| | {{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}} |
| ----
| | <small> |
| Food intake involves both 'homeostatic feeding' (energy demands) and ‘non-homeostatic feeding’; the latter is associated with '''food reward''', which involves both 'liking’ (pleasure/palatability) and ‘wanting’ (incentive motivation) according to the ''salience theory''. Experiments in mice suggest that ‘liking’ involves the release of mu-[[opioid peptide]]s in brain, while ‘wanting’ involves the neurotransmitter [[dopamine]] <ref>Berridge KC (2007) The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: the case for incentive salience. ''Psychopharmacology'' 191:391–431</ref>.
| | ==Footnotes== |
| | |
| ==='''Motivated behaviour and food as a reinforcer'''=== | |
| The brain’s reward systems react to stimuli such as sight, smell and taste, and other cues that predict food. However, hunger cannot result in unconditioned goal-directed behaviour; <ref>Changizi MA ''et al.'' (2002) Evidence that appetitive responses for dehydration and food-deprivation are learned ''Physiol Behav'' 75:295–304</ref> chance encounters with palatable foods are required before goal-directed behaviour can occur, which link the internal needs with the salience of environmental stimuli <ref>Wise RA (2006) Role of brain dopamine in food reward and reinforcement ''Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci'' 361:1149–58</ref>For exa mple, an infant recognises and learns to seek out sweet tastes, but the desire for any particular food is controlled by the interaction of peptide levels (related to hunger) with neural circuits in the brain which store the animal’s past experience of that particular food. <ref>Steiner JE ''et al.''(2001) Comparative expression of hedonic impact: affective reactions to taste by human infants and other primates ''Neurosci Biobehav Rev'' 25:53–74</ref> Subsequently, the infant will taste both food and non-food objects indiscriminately until it has received reinforcing feedback from enough stimuli. A monkey’s appetite for yellow bananas requires that the monkey learns to relate the sight of the yellow skin of a banana with the sweet taste of the banana, plus the consequences of eating it. Preference for a particular food results only when the post-ingestional consequences of that food ’reinforce’ the tendency to eat that food. For these reasons, food is considered to be a strong reinforcer. When the response of a behaviour stimulated by a reinforcer increases the frequency of that behaviour; that is ''positive reinforcement'' or ''reward learning'', and the positive events are called ''rewards'' <ref>Epstein LH ''et al.''(2007) Food reinforcement and eating: a multilevel analysis ''Psychol Bull'' 133:884–906</ref>. The reinforcing efficacy of food reward is the ability of the reward to maintain rather than to establish behaviour; consequently the stimulus learning contributes to the response learning.
| |
| | |
| ''[[Food reward|.... (read more)]]''
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align: center;" | [[Food reward#References|notes]]
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {{reflist|2}} | | {{reflist|2}} |
| |}
| | </small> |
Latest revision as of 09:19, 11 September 2020
The Mathare Valley slum near Nairobi, Kenya, in 2009.
Poverty is deprivation based on lack of material resources. The concept is value-based and political. Hence its definition, causes and remedies (and the possibility of remedies) are highly contentious.[1] The word poverty may also be used figuratively to indicate a lack, instead of material goods or money, of any kind of quality, as in a poverty of imagination.
Definitions
Primary and secondary poverty
The use of the terms primary and secondary poverty dates back to Seebohm Rowntree, who conducted the second British survey to calculate the extent of poverty. This was carried out in York and was published in 1899. He defined primary poverty as having insufficient income to “obtain the minimum necessaries for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency”. In secondary poverty, the income “would be sufficient for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency were it not that some portion of it is absorbed by some other expenditure.” Even with these rigorous criteria he found that 9.9% of the population was in primary poverty and a further 17.9% in secondary.[2]
Absolute and comparative poverty
More recent definitions tend to use the terms absolute and comparative poverty. Absolute is in line with Rowntree's primary poverty, but comparative poverty is usually expressed in terms of ability to play a part in the society in which a person lives. Comparative poverty will thus vary from one country to another.[3] The difficulty of definition is illustrated by the fact that a recession can actually reduce "poverty".
Causes of poverty
The causes of poverty most often considered are:
- Character defects
- An established “culture of poverty”, with low expectations handed down from one generation to another
- Unemployment
- Irregular employment, and/or low pay
- Position in the life cycle (see below) and household size
- Disability
- Structural inequality, both within countries and between countries. (R H Tawney: “What thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thoughtful poor people call with equal justice a problem of riches”)[4]
As noted above, most of these, or the extent to which they can be, or should be changed, are matters of heated controversy.
- ↑ Alcock, P. Understanding poverty. Macmillan. 1997. ch 1.
- ↑ Harris, B. The origins of the British welfare state. Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. Also, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- ↑ Alcock, Pt II
- ↑ Alcock, Preface to 1st edition and pt III.
