Interactionist approach

Interactionist approach

What does the diathesis-stress model suggest?

people can have biological vulnerability to S but environmental stressor (eg: being fired from job) has to trigger the development

Interactionist approach

What does diathesis-stress stand for?

Diathesis = biology
Stress = environment

Interactionist approach

What could be the diathesis?

• genetic vulnerability

• early psychological trauma effecting brain development eg: child abuse

Interactionist approach

AO1

What was Tiernari et al (2004) procedure?

• 145 adopted offspring of Finnish women admitted to psychiatric care for S/paranoid psychosis (high-risk) vs 158 adoptees wi/o genetic genetic risk

• Assessed after a median interval of 12 years w/ a follow up after 21 years

Interactionist approach

AO1

What was Tiernari et al (2004)'s findings?

• 14/303 developed S

• 11/14 high risk

• 3/14 low risk

• Suggests genetic diathesis = more likely to develop

• High risk diathesis, but low OPAS (low stress in the family) acted as protection → less likely to develop S vs high risk + high OPAS rating

Interactionist approach

What treatment should be used according to interactionist approach?

Turkington et al (2006) suggest = possible to believe in biological causes of schizophrenia + practice CBT to relieve psychological symptoms → combination of APs + CBT = common in UK

Interactionist approach

Evaluation: support

Tarrier et al (2004) supports interactionist appr → randomly allocated 315 Ps: 1) APs + CBT, 2) APs + supportive counselling, 3) just APs → Ps in 1 + 2 = reduction in symptoms vs 3 BUT no difference in readmission → v strong/direct support for interactionist appr (genetic vulnerability + family related stress = development of S)

Interactionist approach

Evaluation:

OG D-SM = oversimplified → S = poly genetic disorder, + stress comes in many forms (incl dysfunctional parenting, OR biological factors → eg: Houston et al (2008): childhood trauma = diathesis + cannabis = stressor) → shows OG idea of D-SM (D = bio, S = psychological) oversimplified

Interactionist approach

Evaluation: practical application

Tienari et al (2004): adopted away children of S mothers -> adoptive parents parenting assessed + compared w/ control -> high levels of criticism/conflict + low levels of empathy -> more likely to develop S BUT only for high genetic risk -> practical application = understanding interactionist approach -> advice for parents/monitoring/treatment options

Interactionist approach

Evaluation: support generalisability issues

BUT, Tienarri et al (2004) = 2004 issues w/ generalisation bcs Ps = only Finnish → could be imposed etic if applied to other cultures → could be used to develop Finland's indigenous psych theory of developing S, but may be irrelevant for people in other cultures (eg: African cultures)

Interactionist approach

Evaluation: nature-nurture

compromise b/w nature-nurture debate bcs considers both genetics + environment → effective bcs doesn’t ignore either, but combines them to increase understanding of cause of S