PSYCHOPATHOLOGY ESSAYS
Outline and evaluate the biological approach to OCD [16 marks]
The biological approach to OCD can be divided into neural and genetic explanations. The
neural explanation states that OCD is caused by disrupted communication between the
basal ganglia and the orbitofrontal cortex. According to this explanation, inhibitory signals
from the basal ganglia are weakened, causing hyperactivity of the orbitofrontal cortex,
leading to obsessive thoughts and worries. According to the genetic explanation of OCD,
OCD is a genetic condition which is inherited. A number of gene alleles have been
associated with increased risk of developing OCD. For instance, studies have indicated that
carrying the long allele of the SERT gene is a risk factor of OCD. The SERT gene controls
the reuptake of serotonin at the synapse, with the long allele leading to an increased
serotonin reuptake [and therefore a decrease in serotonin levels at the synapse]. Since
serotonin is an inhibitory neurotransmitter, this decrease in serotonin may contribute to
hyperactivity on the orbitofrontal cortex.
A strength of the biological approach is that it has been applied to develop treatments for
OCD. For example, one popular treatment for OCD is SSRIs which are drugs that increase
the level of serotonin at the synapse. SSRIs have been found to be effective in treating
OCD. For example, Soomro et al reviewed studies comparing SSRIs to placebos in the
treatment of OCD and concluded that all studies reviewed showed significantly better results
for the SSRIs than for placebo conditions. This demonstrates that the biological approach
can successfully be used to treat and explain OCD. However, when patients stop taking
SSRIs they experience a rapid relapse of symptoms. This suggests that SSRIs may be
suppressing symptoms rather than treating the underlying causes of OCD. This is a problem
because it places limitations on the support for the biological approach to OCD.
Another strength is that there is good supporting evidence. For example, Nestadt et al
reviewed previous twin studies and found that a higher percentage of monozygotic twins
shared OCD compared to dizygotic twins which suggests a genetic influence on OCD.
However, concordance rates are never 100% which means that environmental factors must
also play an important role. Furthermore, twin studies/family studies are flawed as genetic
evidence. They indicate a strong genetic factor, but can’t fully control the influence of
environmental factors such as diet and social learning theory.
Another limitation is that the theory is reductionist as it only takes into account biological
factors such as genes and neurones but fails to consider environmental factors.
Environmental factors can also trigger or increase the risk of developing OCD. For example,
Cromer et al found that over half of the OCD patients in their sample had a traumatic event
in their past and that OCD was more severe in those with more than one trauma. This is a
limitation as it suggests that OCD is not entirely genetic in origin, at least not in all cases.
Outline and evaluate the biological approach to OCD [16 marks]
The biological approach to OCD can be divided into neural and genetic explanations. The
neural explanation states that OCD is caused by disrupted communication between the
basal ganglia and the orbitofrontal cortex. According to this explanation, inhibitory signals
from the basal ganglia are weakened, causing hyperactivity of the orbitofrontal cortex,
leading to obsessive thoughts and worries. According to the genetic explanation of OCD,
OCD is a genetic condition which is inherited. A number of gene alleles have been
associated with increased risk of developing OCD. For instance, studies have indicated that
carrying the long allele of the SERT gene is a risk factor of OCD. The SERT gene controls
the reuptake of serotonin at the synapse, with the long allele leading to an increased
serotonin reuptake [and therefore a decrease in serotonin levels at the synapse]. Since
serotonin is an inhibitory neurotransmitter, this decrease in serotonin may contribute to
hyperactivity on the orbitofrontal cortex.
A strength of the biological approach is that it has been applied to develop treatments for
OCD. For example, one popular treatment for OCD is SSRIs which are drugs that increase
the level of serotonin at the synapse. SSRIs have been found to be effective in treating
OCD. For example, Soomro et al reviewed studies comparing SSRIs to placebos in the
treatment of OCD and concluded that all studies reviewed showed significantly better results
for the SSRIs than for placebo conditions. This demonstrates that the biological approach
can successfully be used to treat and explain OCD. However, when patients stop taking
SSRIs they experience a rapid relapse of symptoms. This suggests that SSRIs may be
suppressing symptoms rather than treating the underlying causes of OCD. This is a problem
because it places limitations on the support for the biological approach to OCD.
Another strength is that there is good supporting evidence. For example, Nestadt et al
reviewed previous twin studies and found that a higher percentage of monozygotic twins
shared OCD compared to dizygotic twins which suggests a genetic influence on OCD.
However, concordance rates are never 100% which means that environmental factors must
also play an important role. Furthermore, twin studies/family studies are flawed as genetic
evidence. They indicate a strong genetic factor, but can’t fully control the influence of
environmental factors such as diet and social learning theory.
Another limitation is that the theory is reductionist as it only takes into account biological
factors such as genes and neurones but fails to consider environmental factors.
Environmental factors can also trigger or increase the risk of developing OCD. For example,
Cromer et al found that over half of the OCD patients in their sample had a traumatic event
in their past and that OCD was more severe in those with more than one trauma. This is a
limitation as it suggests that OCD is not entirely genetic in origin, at least not in all cases.
