Interactionist Approach Flashcards
What the diathesis stress model
Both a vulnerability to SZ and a stress-trigger are necessary in order to develop the condition
What is Meehl’s model
Diathesis vulnerability was entirely genetic and the result of a schizogene, leading to the development of a biologically based schizotypic personality (one characteristic of this is sensitivity to stress), if a person does not have the schizogene then no amount of stress would lead to SZ
What is the modern understanding of diathesis
Now clear that many genes appear to increase genetic vulnerability slightly, no single schizogene but 107+
-also include a range of factors beyond genetic including psychological trauma which becomes the diathesis rather than the stressor
-neurodevelopmental model proposed in which early trauma alters the developing brain, early and severe enough trauma (eg child abuse) can affect may aspects of brain development eg the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) system can become over-active making person much more vulnerable to later stress
What is the modern definition of stress
Anything that risks triggering SZ
What is the modern understanding of stress
Originally seen as psychological in nature in particular related to parenting
-recent research concerned cannabis use which is a stressor as increases risk of SZ by up to 7X as it interferes with the dopamine system, most people do not develop SZ after smoking cannabis suggesting must be one or more vulnerability factors
What is treatment according to the interaction it’s model
Model acknowledges both bio and psych factors so compatible with both types of treatment
-combining antipsychotic medication and psychological therapies most commonly CBT
What did Turkington say
That it is perfectly possible to believe in biological causes of SZ and still practise CBT to relieve psychological symptoms, must adopt interactionist approach as not possible to adopt purely hip approach and tell people their condition is purely bio and that there is no psychological significance to symptoms while simultaneously treating them with CBT
What is common practice in UK and US
In UK increasingly standard practice to treat with combination of drugs and CBT, in US more of a history of conflict between Teo models so slower adoption of interactionist approach, more common for medication without accompanying psychological treatment
Expand on strength that there is evidence for the role of vulnerability and triggers
-Tienari investigated combo of genetic vulnerability and parenting style
-children adopted from 19000 Finnish mothers with SZ had their adoptive parents assessed for child-rearing style and rates of SZ compared to those in control group of adoptees without genetic risk
-child-rearing style characterised by high levels of criticism and conflict and low levels of empathy implicates in development of SZ but only for children with high genetic vulnerability
-suggests both genetic vulnerability and family related stress important in development of SZ, very strong direct support for importance of adopting interactionist approach to SZ
Expand on limitation that original diathesis-stress model is an oversimplification
-multiple genes increase vulnerability to SZ, no single schizogene
-stress can come in many forms and is not limited to dysfunctional parenting= vulnerability and stress do not have one single source
-now believed vulnerability can be the result of early trauma as well as genetic make up
-shows old idea of diathesis as biological and stress as psychological has turned out to be overly simple
Expand on strength that there is support for the effectiveness of combinations of treatments
-Tarrier randomly allocated 315 ppts to either medication and CBT/medication and dif therapy/control group of medication only
-ppts in groups with combination of psychological and biological therapies showed greatest reduction in symptoms although no dif in rates of hospital readmission
-clear practical advantage to adopting interactionist approach in form of superior treatment outcomes, supports validity of approach as suggests SZ caused by both factors
Expand on limitation that there is treatment-causation fallacy
-the fact that combined biological and psychological treatments are more effective than either on their own does not necessarily mean interactionist approach to SZ is correct, just as drugs being effective does not mean SZ is biological
-arguing theory is correct because treatment is effective is a reasoning error=disputes evidence that using treatments in combination supports interactionist approach
