Adderall and the Prisoner’s Dilemma
In this op-ed piece, “The rampant abuse of Adderall on college campuses across the country” featured in the Hamilton Spectator, undergraduate student Allie Duggan provides statistics and also personal ideas about the phenomenon of study-drug use on college campuses throughout the US. When we think about the effects of performance enhancing drugs such as Adderall and Vyvanse, we think about increased focus and stamina rather than those cited by by Duggan such as sleep disruption, risk of depression, erratic behavior, cardiovascular issues etc. Duggan believes that the cause of this phenomenon is the hypercompetitive environment on campus and a culture that emphasizes the concept of human capital value: our worth and success is defined by capital value as a product of our experience and ability. And I agree. If we aren’t good enough, we can take something to get us ahead. When it comes to the choice of taking study-drugs versus refraining from the urge to give in to such temptations, it would be useful to analyze this situation in the context of a concept we’ve reviewed in class, the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Let’s think of a hypothetical scenario. Its 11:00PM on a Sunday and two unprepared students are cramming for an exam at 10:00AM on the following day. Each student has a 30mg extended release Adderall tablet that they bought from a friend (neither are prescribed). The two students decide that the best way to prepare is by sacrificing sleep and reviewing study guides. They each independently consider the payoff of taking the pill. In this payoff matrix—where “YES” represents taking the pill and “NO” represents abstaining—we can see that if both students take the Adderall, they both have an equally beneficial payoff of 5. However, if one student says “YES” and the other says “NO” the one who uses the drug has a payoff of 10 (double the payoff of the previous situation) and the one who refrains has a payoff of 0. Therefore, we can see that if both students use the drug, it raises the bar, but keeps a level playing field (one could argue that this isn’t actually a level playing field). If both students say “NO” they have a payoff of 0 (important to take into account: this example doesn’t consider the other students taking the exam and if they are or aren’t using drugs).
By analyzing the use of Adderall in the context of the prisoner’s dilemma, we can gain insight into the consequences of this widespread practice and raise important questions to consider around the issue. If students undiagnosed with ADD are using drugs to get ahead, should they be available to everyone? How else can there be a level playing field? On the flip side, what about students that are actually prescribed Adderall who require drugs to focus for extended periods of time? It’s safe to say that the use of Adderall among undiagnosed college students is driving competition higher. It’s raising the bar for everyone and unfairly confusing the experience of people who are prescribed Adderall. At this rate, is the best outcome for everyone to use the drug and for those prescribed to double up? This sounds really, really dangerous. But there’s zero chance that college students, in this day and age, will discontinue their use of study drugs while the payoff matrix exists as is.