Psychological explanations of sz (family, double bind, EE)-EVAL Flashcards
one ISSUE with this family research is that it is SOCIALLY SENSITIVE research and so has NEGATIVE ethical iplications.
This is because it has negative ethical implications for FAMILIES (esp mothers) who are essentially BLAMED for the hcil dhaving sz.
This means that this research ahs lead to NEG ethical implications for families and coul dbe suggested that this line of research into psych explanations of sz such as these should NOT be contributed due to their socially sensitive nature.
One STRENGTH of the COG explanation of sz, in particular CENTRAL CONTROL is that there is research support.
*Stirlin compared 30 sz patients with 18 non sz controls on cog tasks such as the STROOP test where you name the colour ink, suppressing saying the word.
*Sz patients took TWICE as long to name the ink colours as the control group.
This SUPPORTS the role of faulty thought processing in particular CENTRAL CONTROL as a cause of sz because it suggests that sz patients found it MORE difficult to suppress the automatic thoughts of saying the word compared to the non-sz supporting that they had DYSFUNCTION in their control, supporting this psych explanation of sz.
HOWEVER, one ISSUE with the stroop test research is that it does not tell us anything of the ORIGIN of the cognitions and there is also a problem of CAUSE + EFFECT,
We only tend to look at the cognitions of patients once they are ALREADY diagnosed, therefore it could be that the dysfunction informational processing in this case -dysfunctional central control could be CAUSING the sz symptoms.
However, it could also be that because that person has sz they are NOW having problems with central control, meaning that it is an EFFECT of sz. If this is the case then we do NOT know what the CAUSE is. There could also be a 3RD variable which happens to bring the dysfunctional processing and sz TOGETHER e.g. a bio issue such as genes or neurotransmitters, all of this QUESTIONS the psych explanation of sz.
one ISSUE with the psych explanation of sz is that BIOLOGICAL explanations are not considered.
Therefore they could be considered to be REDUCTIONIST, in the case of the cogntiive explanation they would be considered MACHINE reductionist treating us like INFORMATION processers, adn in family dysfunction tey would be ENVIRO reductionist as only our family environment would be looked at.
Therefore, an INTERACTIONAL approach where we look at BOTH bio nad psych factors together would be BETTER as it could NOT miss either the bio/psych factors CASUING sz.
E.g. we look at the DIATHESIS STRESS MODEL approach, where genes may make us genetically PREDISPOSED to sz i.e. the diathesesis and then psych factors such as family dysfunciton or dysfunctionl thought processing could be the STRESSOR which would COMBINE with this diathesis to RESULT in sz.
One STRENGTH of the dysfunctional thought processing is that it has successful THERAPY based upon it which could be used as EVIDENCE for the explanation in the 1st place.
Cog. therapies have been SUCCESSFUL in treating some POSITIVE symptoms of sz e.g. delusions/hallucinations. CBT for psychosis encourages patients to EVALUATE their delusions and voices and consider them for VALIDITY ie how real those experiences are.
Success of CBT for psychosis shows that sz may be caused by FAULTY thought processing because it suggests that if the treatment involves CHANGES to cognition then perhaps they could be part of the cause to begin with.
However there’s n issue with this in terms of the treatment causation fallacy, this would NOT agree with this and suggests that just because the treatment REDUCES symptoms, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the cause IS dysfunctional thought processing.
