What does the interactionist approach acknowledge?
The interactionist approach acknowledges that there are biological, psychological and social factors that may lead to schizophrenia
What model explains the interactionist approach?
The diathesis - stress model
What does diathesis mean?
What does “stress” refer to?
Diathesis means vulnerability and stress refers to a negative psychological experience
What does the diathesis - stress model state?
(vul. to schiz + s. trigger = needed to develop schiz)
The diathesis - stress model says that both a vulnerability to schizophrenia and a stress - trigger are necessary in order to develop the condition
What does the original diathesis stress model state?
(diathesis = genetic - single schizogene, experience stress - parenting - schiz development, e.g schzi mother + EE, factors = trigger schiz - someone w/ schiz)
The original model states diathesis is genetic, resulting from a single ‘schizogene’. It shows that if an individual experiences stress in relation to parenting, it leads to the development of the illness. An example may be the individual having a schizophrenogenic mother or expressed emotions in the family. The presence of these factors may trigger schizophrenia in someone with the schizogene.
What does the modern diathesis - stress model state?
(diathesis = multiple genes - no single schiz gene, diathesis - more than gene - e.g psych trauma, child abuse - brain devop - hypothalamic - pituitary adrenal system - overactive - > vul. stress, stress = anything that can trig schiz)
The modern model states that diathesis can be caused by multiple genes, so there is no single ‘schizogene’.
It is also stated, diathesis could be a range of factors beyond genetics, including psychological trauma. A psychologist proposed child abuse can affect brain development such as causing the hypothalamic - pituitary adrenal system to become overactive, making the person much more vulnerable to later stress. Focusing on the stress aspect, the modern model states that stress could be anything that risks triggering schizophrenia
How does cannabis usage increase the risk of schizophrenia, explained by the modern diathesis - stress model?
(cannabis use = neg exp = stressor - inc schiz devop x 7, most cannabis smokers =/ schiz, other vul factors)
The modern diathesis - stress model argues the use of cannabis is a negative experience, making it a stressor that could increase the chances of developing schizophrenia, by 7 times. However, most people who smoke cannabis do not develop schizophrenia, so it can be assumed there are other vulnerability factors.
Describe the difference in the treatments of schizophrenia, in relation to the views of modern - diathesis model:
Compare UK & USA
(UK - common to combine APs + CBT, accept modern model, US - common: meds + no psych treatment - conflict in beliefs - causes of illness)
In the UK, it is more common for a combination of antipsychotic drugs and CBT to be used because they accept the modern - diathesis model. Whereas, in the US, it is more common to give medication without any psychological treatment due to the conflict in beliefs about the causes of the illness.
- What is a limitation of the interactionist approach?
(inapprop treatment, patients w/ CBT - see side effects - delusional manner = inc mistrust + resist further meds, cost + time builds - wasted - no imp = further distress w/ no sol.)
A limitation of the interactionist approach is the inappropriateness of the treatments. The patients who receive CBT sometimes interpret the side effects of drug treatment in a delusional manner, increasing their mistrust and resistance to further treatment. This means that costs and time could accumulate, which go to waste, and with no improvement in illness, there is just further distress caused without reason.
- What is a limitation point of the interactionist approach?
(combo of psych + bio treatments = more effective, argued effective =/ approach most correct, thinking like this = treatment - causation fallacy error, argue - not always effect - exp schiz)
The combination of biological and psychological treatments has proved to be more effective, in some cases. However, it has been argued the effectiveness of the treatment does not mean the interactionist approach is the most correct explanation of schizophrenia. This type of thinking has been referred to as the treatment - causation fallacy error. Therefore, it can be argued the approach is not always effective in explaining schizophrenia
- What is a limitation of the interactionist approach?
(lacks exp, recog other factors - give E.Gs, no exp - factors interact = schiz - importance of each factor diff 4 ppl, shows lim. exp power)
Another limitation is the lack of explanation in the interactionist approach. The approach recognises that other factors, like the biological or psychological factors, all contribute to schizophrenia. However, it does not precisely explain how these factors interact to cause schizophrenia in a specific individual, as the relative importance of each risk factor may differ from person to person. This means the approach is limited in its explanatory power.
What is a strength of the interactionist approach?
(Tarrier et al study = external validity, HIS STUDY - 315 ppts, 3 diff conds, C1 - meds + CBT, C2 - meds + counsel, C3 - meds only, ppts in conds 1+2 = red. sympt, practical app - approach treating schiz)
Research conducted by Tarrier et al shows the external validity of the interactionist approach. In his study, he allocated 315 participants to three different conditions. Condition one consisted of medication and CBT treatment, condition two consisted of medication and counselling and condition three consisted of medication only. It was found that participants in conditions one and two showed reduced symptoms following the trial. This shows a clear practical application for the use of the interactionist approach when treating schizophrenia.
