Interactionist Approach Flashcards
What is the interactionist approach?
A way to explain development in terms of a range of factors, including both psychological and biological ones. Most importantly such factors don’t simply add together but combine in a way that can’t be predicted by each one separately.
What are biological and psychological factors of the approach
BIO: genetic vulnerability, neurochemical and neurological abnormality
PSYCH: stress, life events and daily hassles and social factors such as poor quality interactions in the family
What is the diathesis stress model?
An interactionist approach to explaining behaviour. SZ is explained as the result of an underlying vulnerability (diathesis) and a trigger (stressor) both of which are necessary for the onset of SZ.
What is the diathesis and what is the stress?
Diathesis- genes and traumas
Stress- biological or psychological
What is Meehls model?
The original diathesis stress model (1962) suggests diathesis is entirely genetic and the result of a “schizogene”. This led to the idea of biologically based “schizotypic personality”. If a person doesn’t have the gene no amount of stress would lead to SZ. However, carriers of the gene through presence of schizophrenogenic mother could result in development of the disorder.
What is the modern understanding of diathesis?
There is no single schizogene and factors go beyond genetic and may involve psychological trauma becoming the diathesis over the stressor. Early and severe trauma (child abuse) can affect brain development the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA0 can become overactive making a person vulnerable to stress
What is the modern understanding of stress?
Stress isn’t just psychological it can also be due to cannabis use increasing risk of SZ up to seven times as it interferes with dopamine system. Most people do not develop SZ as they lack vulnerability factors
What is treatment according to the interactionist approach?
Model associates with combining antipsychotic medication and CBT. Turkingston et al point out it is possible to believe in biological causes and use CBT to relieve psychological symptoms. This is an interactionist approach as it isn’t possible to be entirely biological and use both.
What are AO3 points? (BRIEF)
- Evidence supporting role of vulnerability and triggers
-Diathesis and stress are complex original model is oversimpified - RWA: Combination of treatments BUT, cannot explain whether interactionist approach is true
What are strengths of the approach?
- Evidence supporting role of vulnerability and triggers. Tiernari et al investigated the impact of genetic vulnerability and a psychological trigger, followed 19,000 finish children whose bio mothers had SZ. In adulthood they were compared to control group of adoptees without a family history (low genetic risk). High genetic risk group had high levels of criticism and low empathy. Combination of both leads to increased risk of SZ
RWA: Combination of treatments. Tarrier et al showed combining treatments had better effectiveness. Randomly assigned 315 p’s to a control group 1) medication + CBT 2) medication + counselling 3) medication only (CG). P’s in combination group showed lower symptoms, no difference in hospital readmission. Practical advantage superior treatment outcomes. BUT, Jarvis and Okami say logical error as it creates treatment-causation fallacy we cannot assume because of the success of treatment interactionist approach is true.
What are limitations of the approach?
Oversimplicity, original model portrayed diathesis as a single schizogene and portrayed stress as schizophrenogenic parenting this is simplistic. Multiple genes in multiple combinations effect diathesis. Stress comes in many forms and isn’t limited to dysfunctional parenting- biological and psychological. Houston et al childhood sexual abuse emerged as an influence of vulnerability and cannabis as a trigger. Multiple factors of the modern understanding of diathesis and stress.
