March 11, 2020

Rhetorical Analysis of  “Faster but not smarter: effects of caffeine and caffeine withdrawal on alertness and performance”

     Americans have been fighting against a silent addictive substance for decades, the issue is that this substance is not illegal and anyone of any age range can have access to it. We can find this substance in a large variety of beverages that we consume daily, from our breakfast to our dinner. This substance is caffeine, the most commonly consumed beverages that contain caffeine in the U.S are generally tea, coffee and soda. caffeine can be consumed in any season, time of the day and can be accompanied by any food.Caffeine, like any substance that enters our body, causes certain changes to our systems or how they function. In “Faster but not smarter: effects of caffeine and caffeine withdrawal on alertness and performance”, a research paper whose principal objectives are to measure the effects of caffeine withdrawal during the night and the administration of caffeine based on the level of usual caffeine consumption. It was written by Peter J. Rogers, Susan V. Heatherly, Emma L. Mullings and Jessica E. Smith. It was published on October 30, 2012 in Psychopharmacology, which is the Official Journal of the European Behavioural Pharmacology Society. And its main focus is to cover the general area of explaining the neurochemical mechanisms that affect behavior. This rhetorical Analysis purpose is to explore deeply the connection between caffeine and the behavior of hour organisms. 

      As already mentioned, the main focus of this article is to take a deep observation to how caffeine consumption and withdrawal affects specific groups of people. The  negative effects include: lowered alertness,slowed mental performance and headache. At the introduction of the article is mentioned that this isn’t the first psychopharmacology study of caffeine intake. The first one is said to be published more than 100 years ago, and it was commissioned by Coca-cola as a mechanism of defense during a lawsuit (Benjamin 2010). What really differs this article from the past ones is that this one notes the difference between dependence and addiction (Rogers, Heatherley, Mullings, & Smith, 2012). With this noted, the main focus of the study is to discuss that caffeine has a low potential for abuse and also understand how frequent caffeine consumers are dependent on the substance and the effects this has on the organisms of the consumers

       By reading the journal’s scopes and aims, the audience that’s trying to be reached in this article are most likely to be clinical psychopharmacologists, caffeine consumers, psychologists and any science or medical field that works related to  substance dependence or abuse. The results from this study could create a path on distinguishing caffeine intake from other drugs. It could also create awareness for frequent consumers. Lastly it can help aiming for new treatments or strategies to lessen caffeine consumption due to the effects that a withdrawal from this substance could bring up. This mainly because the article creates a contrast and explanation on how there’s a big contrast in between caffeine consumption effects and caffeine withdrawal impact on the human body.

      This research article properly follows traditional IMRAD and begins with an introduction where the authors address, examine and explain the purpose of the study, it also guides and emits an idea on how the process was like, and lastly it also summarizes briefly the results. At the beginning of the introduction the author engages their audience by noting how caffeine can be easily consumed by a vast amount of people worldwide. It’s mentioned that even though caffeine is intaked for the perception that the substance is helpful, the authors go on stating how in reality it really generates physiological and behavioral effects. (Rogers, Heatherley, Mullings, & Smith, 2012)  during this first part the authors also demonstrate a background on similar studies about caffeine intake, however they explain how their study differs from the rest and how it also relies on those previous studies.

      By expanding and giving easy to understand information regarding previous research, the authors create ethos by showing credibility on how well-informed  they are about this topic. The authors mention that there’s few studies however that have taken in mind the factor that they want to study.  (Rogers, Heatherley, Mullings, & Smith, 2012). They are responding to the big scale question and one of the biggest obstacles in determining the benefits or the adverse effects of caffeine, which is the creation of tolerance to the substance over a long time period of frequent consumption.

      The research paper mentioned those previous studies in order to show a gap and how they want to solve that issue, by explaining the results while taking in my the factor of frequent and infrequent consumption of caffeine  (Rogers, Heatherley, Mullings, & Smith, 2012). Through the process, 369 and were on the range of age from 18 years old to 62 years old. (Rogers, Heatherley, Mullings, & Smith, 2012). The researchers analyzed the participants caffeine consumer status by using the participants” salivary caffeine concentration “ (Rogers, Heatherley, Mullings, & Smith, 2012). After, the consumers were divided into “non-low” and medium-high” caffeine consumers and were randomly assigned to receive caffeine. Results from self reported sleepiness, anxiety and mental alertness (mental performance) and for task performance (tapping performance) differ significantly.

     After the experiment a summary of the results is divided into 3 levels. Which are, non-low consumer, after caffeine, medium-high consumer, caffeine withdrawal and medium-low consumer after caffeine. For the first group (non-low consumer, after caffeine) the measured factors results were that the sleepiness level decreased, anxiety/jitteriness level increased and mental alertness maintained a normal level. The second group ( medium-high consumer, caffeine withdrawal ) illustrated the results as, sleepiness level increased, anxiety level stayed at normal level and mental alertness decreased. Lastly the third group (medium-low consumer after caffeine) showed that during  the results none of the already mentioned levels either decrease or increase. (Rogers, Heatherley, Mullings, & Smith, 2012). Through the text the researchers used many different strategies such as tables, comparisons and exact values,  to explain the results and connect their hypothesis to the results. As already shown the result evidence how withdrawn or abstention of caffeine generate negative effects on frequent consumers of coffee by creating a tolerance to it to a level where consuming coffee doesn’t help them anymore as it did for the non-low consumers. However, the results also showed that dependence on caffeine causes vigorous problems at the time that consumers refrain from consuming it for a certain period of time.(Rogers, Heatherley, Mullings, & Smith, 2012). 

      Generalizing, this rhetorical analysis served as a personal and professional growth for me. During the analysis of this study I learned many things that I have noticed even in my own life. I usually consume one to two cups of coffee a day and I had noticed that over time, my body stopped showing improvement after drinking coffee and I also realized that at the time of not consuming coffee for a day or in the morning, my body denoted certain negative changes such as those mentioned during this study. Before analyzing this study, I didn’t know if this was anything real. Basically, after performing this analysis, my curiosity transformed to an understanding of this topic. I also managed to understand and familiarize myself with a new essay structure. At the beginning of this analysis I thought it would be very difficult to understand this IMRAD format, however at the end and after analyzing it and writing about it, I understood and became familiar with the data provided during the article. Now I have a better knowledge of this format which favors me, since according to my future career I am sure that I will have to perform essays with this type of format in the future.