The Interactionist Approach to Schizophrenia

Question 1

Interactionist Approach

Answer 1

Explains development of schizophrenia using a range of factors including biological, psychological and social
=> factors combine in a way that can’t be predicted due to complex interactions

Question 2

Diathesis - Stress Model

Answer 2

An interactionist approach where disorders like SZ are explained as a result of both an vulnerability (diathesis) and trigger (stress)

Question 3

Meehl’s Model (1962) - Traditional Understanding

Answer 3

• argues vulnerabilities were entirely biological, specifically a ‘schizogene’
  => w/o, it’s impossible to get SZ)
• psychological factors (e.g. stress, communication style) were considered triggers

Question 4

Read et al (2001) - Modern Understanding

Answer 4

• Psychological trauma may lead to vulnerability (early trauma can influence developing brain)
• Psychological stress is still important but also environment (e.g. smoking THC-rich cannabis, DiForti et al 2015)

Question 5

Treatment according to Diathesis - Stress Model

Answer 5

• Recognising both psych + bio factors, both antipsychotics + talk therapies can be used for treatment

=> In UK, interactionist approaches is the standard
=> In US, antipsychotics are usually prescribed alone

Question 6

(S) Evidencs for vulnerability and triggers

Answer 6

Tienari et al (2004) - Finnish adoption study of 19000 children w/ bio mothers w/ SZ raised in diff. environments

=> significantly more likely than control to develop SZ in adulthood
=> communication style is linked but only w/ those w/genetic vulnerability

Shows => combo of genetics + family stress can lead to higher risk of SZ

Question 7

(L) Original diathesis - stress is oversimplistic

Answer 7

• Evidence of multiple factors e.g there’s 108 genes linked to SZ (Ripke et al, 2014)
• Stress can be biological e.g. childhood abuse as vulnerability and cannabis as trigger (Houston et al, 2009)

Means - multiple factors affecting diathesis, supporting modern understanding

Question 8

(S) Real World Application

Answer 8

Tarrier et al (2004) - randomly aloocated 315 pps in 3 groups: meds + CBT, meds + counselling, meds only
=> combo groups showed lower symptom levels

Means - practical advantage to adopt interactionist approach in form of superior treatment outcomes

Question 9

COUNTER to Real World Application : Treatment - Causation Fallacy

Answer 9

Jarvis + Okami (2019) - just because a treatment is effective, doesn’t mean lack of combo is the cause

Means => despite clear practical advantage, can’t assume success of treatment = interactionist approach is correct

Question 10

AO3 Extra - Urbanisation as a trigger

Answer 10

• SZ is more commonly diagnosed in urban than rural areas may support interactionist
• However, SZ may be more noticed in cities

On balance, greater chances of diagnosis in cites is not strong support for interactionist posistion