explaining ocd ao3

Question 1

supporting evidence

Answer 1

nestadat found that people with relatives with ocd were five times more likely to develop OCD later on in life, compared to the general population.

billet, meta analysis for 14 studies looking at mz and dz twins and mz were twice as likely to get ocd.

inc the validity of genetic explaination for ocd

Question 2

supporting evidence for neural explanations

Answer 2

Menzies found that during mri scans, peoples OFC was abnormal in people with OCD compared to the control group.

furthermore, anti depressants that focus on just seritonin are effective in reducing ocd.

Question 3

methodological issues with twin studies in explaining OCD

Answer 3

concordance rates are never 100% which they would be if OCD was purely a genetic disorder, yet the studies do not support this. futhermore, OCD may run in families, yet the specific symptoms don’t.
therefore, its suggested that OCD may not be purely biological reducing the validity of the explaination.

Question 4

biological explaination ignores the roles of nurture in explaining OCD

Answer 4

focuses purely on genetic, neural explanations and ignores the environmental influences that could effect someone in developing ocd. this is supported by half of old patients recalling a traumatic event that caused them to develop OCD.

ignores role of nature, and the ideas of diathesis stress, where both the nature and nurture of a person can both influence ocd.

Question 5

practical applications

Answer 5

finding that patients have abnormalities in the OFC through MRIS means that people could spot the diagnosis sooner, this could lead to more effective treatment.
therefore the biological explaination for explaining old could actually improve peoples lives in the real world.