Interactionist approach to sz-EVAL Flashcards
one STRENGTH of the interactionist approach to explaining sz is that there is RESEARCH support for DIATHESIS stress.
*investigated genetic VULN and parenting style in 19,000 children adopted from FINNISH mothers who HAVE sz.
- Adopted parents tested for parenting style and rates of sz were compared to a CONTROL group without ANY genetic risk.
*child rearing was characterized by criticism, conflict and LOW empathy was linked to development of sz, but ONLY in those with a genetic risk.
Therefore, this shows support for the int approach of diathesis stress in explaining sz as the childrearing i.e. the STRESSOR did lead to sz but only in those when coupled WITH the genetic vulnerability from the BIO mom i.e. the diathesis.
The parenting style alone ISN’T enough to lead to sz.
However an issue with this study is POP validity and CULTURE bias
It only studies children in FINLAND which becomes a CULTURE bias as the results found on diathesis stress can ONLY be applied to those in Finland which becomes a BETA bias as we may be MINIMISING the differences between the cultures.
However, 19,000 is a LARGE sample which means there is HIGH pop validity for Finland, meaning the support for the int. approach to explaining sz through the diathesis stress would generalise to the population of Finland as a WHOLE.
One STRENGTH of the interactionist approach to EXPLAINAING sz is that we have a successful THERAPY based on this approach.
There have been EFFECTIVE interactionist therapies that have been used in the TREATMENT of sz e.g. drug therapy combined with family therapy. This could show support for the int approach to explaining sz as we have a SUCCESSFUL therapy based on the approach.
HOWEVER an issue with this is that it could involve the TREATMENT CAUSATION FALLACY which would suggest that this would be an ERROR as the theory says that just because the interactionist therapy WORKS doesn’t mean the CAUSE is one of interactionism.
This therefore QUESTIONS the interactionist approach to explaining sz.
one STRENGTH of the ineractionist approach to TREATING sz is that it has RESEARCH support.
*315 patients randomly allocated medication and CBT group, medication and supportive councelling group or a control group of meds ONLY.
- Those in the 2 combo therapy groups showed LOWER level symptoms than those in the control gorup with ONLY meds.
Therefore this shows that the combo group suggests 2 therapies usd in COMBO were MORE effective at treating sz than medication alone. This therefore SUPPORTS the use of an interccactionist approach to treating sz.
+Further STRENGTH is the RANDOM allocation in the study, this would have CONTROLLED the ppt variables across the conditions e.g. the SEVERITY of their sz.
Therefore these ppt variables would nit have CONFOUNDED the study, which raises the IV so we can be SURE We are m
measuring what we are supposed to be and sure that the DIFFERENCES found between the groups WERE due to the different THERAPIES and not ppt variables.
One STRENGTH of interactionism is that it is BETTER than reductionism as it does NOT reduice treating sz down to just ONE simple issue.
This means it does NOT potentially MISS other important factors which could LOWER effectiveness overall.
Therefore, interactionist treatment moves towards a HOLISTIC approach enabling MORE than one factor which can be treated at once, which may lead to more SUCCESSFUL treatment of sz overall.
