the interactionist approach

Question 1

why should we use an interactionist approach to explain sz?

Answer 1

• it considers both biological and psychological factors, encompassing the diathesis-stress model
• diathesis = vulnerability and stress = psychological experience. so the model argues both a vulnerability to sz (e.g. genetics) and a stress trigger (e.g. family dysfunction) are necessary for sz to develop

Question 2

understanding diathesis

Answer 2

• there is no single ‘schizogene’, instead many genes appear to increase vulnerability for sz
• read et al (2001) argue diathesis can also include factors like psychological trauma as child abuse, which alters an infant’s developing brain and causes vulnerability (the HPA system becomes overactive) making them more vulnerable to stress

Question 3

understanding stress

Answer 3

-the original model states stress is psychological, so sz was caused by dysfunctional family dynamics
- now a broader definition is used and stress refers to anything that could risk triggering sz, for example, cannabis use can be a stressor as it disrupts our dopamine system

Question 4

give a strength of the interactionist approach to explaining sz
1/1

Answer 4

research evidence supports this approach. barlow and durand (2009) found a family history of sz hinted at a genetic link, and when combined with a dysfunctional family the risk of developing sz increased. this supports the idea of using a diathesis-stress model to explain sz as the increased risk was the result of an interaction between genetics and stress from the family dynamic

Question 5

give a limitation of the interactionist approach to explaining sz
1/2

Answer 5

the model proposes that sz is caused by an interaction between biology and the environment, but it is unknown how these risk factors contribute to the diathesis-stress interaction, as the causes may differ between each person. this weakness the approach as we don’t fully understand the mechanisms behind how sz develops and how vulnerability and stress both lead to it

Question 6

give a limitation of the interactionist approach to explaining sz
2/2

Answer 6

it is argued that the original diathesis-stress model is too simplistic, the idea that one single gene combined with a specific parenting style causes sz is too simple. multiple genes have been associated with sz and found to increase its risk, and stress isn’t limited to just parenting style and family dynamics. recent research has found that vulnerability isn’t limited to biology by discovering that childhood sexual trauma increased the risk of developing sz, which could then later be triggered by cannabis use. so the original idea that vulnerability and stress only come in one form is dated and over simplistic

Question 7

why should we use an interactionist approach to treat sz?

Answer 7

• research has indicated that combining biological and psychological treatments is most effective
• the combination is usually dependent on the patient’s circumstances, for example, FT wouldn’t be offered to someone who isn’t in contact with their family
• in britain drugs are given first to reduce symptoms so psychological treatments (usually CBT) are better engaged with
• the US doesn’t take this approach and often offers medication alone
• adopting an interactionist approach to treating sz means we acknowledge the influence of diathesis and stress in the cause of sz

Question 8

give a strength of the interactionist approach to treating sz
1/2

Answer 8

research evidence supports the approach. guo et al (2010) found those who had both drugs and psychological therapy in the early stages of sz had improved insight and social functioning and were less likely to relapse compared to those on just meds. this shows the importance of combining biological and psychological treatments

Question 9

give a strength of the interactionist approach to treating sz
2/2

Answer 9

combining treatments is cost-effective. since sz has biological and psychological components, treatment via a combination is desired. antipsychotics tackle the biological aspects and psychological treatments tackle the psychological aspects. even though this combination of treatments does increase the initial cost, as effectiveness increases the combined treatment is more cost-effective in the long run and both elements are addressed

Question 10

give a limitation of the interactionist approach to treating sz
1/2

Answer 10

combining treatments doesn’t always have a pos effect. research has found that some patients who have CBT can interpret the side effects of their meds in a delusional way. this can lead to them mistrusting and resisting further treatment, therefore suggesting that combined treatments can cause issues.

Question 11

give a limitation of the interactionist approach to treating sz
2/2

Answer 11

critics argue against the logic of this approach. turkington et al (2006) argue that although research shows combining biological and psychological treatments is more effective than them on their own, this doesn’t necessarily support the interactions approach. we cannot be certain that it is the interaction of the treatments causing the increased efficiency, this is the treatment-causation fallacy