Understanding Psychopathology | Learning Objectives
Lecture 1 | Good Theories | 15.11.2023
- Explain the critical features of “good” theories and why theories can be best seen
as disposables (are not forever).
- Features of “good” theories:
1. It should be testable/falsifiable.
2. Parsimony (keep it as simple as possible).
3. It should add information to the observation.
4. It should be consistent with known facts.
5. It has been tested and showed predictive validity.
6. It should be internally consistent (no contradicting/conflicting
predictions).
7. The fewer assumptions, the better (Occam’s Razor).
- They can be best seen as disposable because no theory has eternal value. If a
better theory is found, exchange it. Don’t hold onto old theories if better ones
exist.
- Explain why it is critical/important for therapists to know how and why their
interventions work.
- It is important because if you don’t know how or why an intervention works,
you are not sure your intervention works or if there is another factor that
influences the situation. This could lead to potentially dangerous situations
(increasing drug levels, for example, while the drug is not the cause of the
change).
- Describe Clark’s cognitive model of panic disorder and explain how the various
components of the model have been tested.
- It consists of 5 components in a circle. They have been tested using CO2 levels,
hyperventilating, cliodone (drug) usage and control groups.
- Explain how (and where) the various effective interventions for panic disorder
tap into Clark’s model.
- The sandwich bag helps because the perceived threat is taken away, breaking
the cycle. Clonidine (drug) helps because it decreases all physical sensations.
Not everyone is sensitive to a panic attack as not everyone makes a
catastrophic misinterpretation of physical sensations. Very low and very high
levels of CO2 both induce symptoms of a panic attack because they both
influence physical sensations.
- Describe and explain the arguments that have been raised against EMDR.
- Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is a psychotherapy
approach that was developed by Francine Shapiro in the late 1980s. It is
primarily used for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and
involves a structured eight-phase process, including the use of bilateral
stimulation, typically in the form of guided eye movements. While EMDR has
gained popularity and support as an effective treatment for trauma, there have
been some arguments and criticisms raised against it. It's important to note that
, opinions on EMDR can vary among professionals, and research findings
continue to shape the discourse. Here are some common arguments raised
against EMDR:
1. Lack of a Clear Mechanism of Action: Critics argue that the exact
mechanism through which EMDR works is not well-understood. While
bilateral stimulation is a key component, the underlying reasons for its
effectiveness remain unclear. Some suggest that the eye movements
may be unnecessary, and any therapeutic benefits may result from other
elements of the treatment, such as exposure therapy or cognitive
restructuring.
2. Placebo Effect: Some critics contend that the reported positive
outcomes of EMDR may be attributed, at least in part, to the placebo
effect. The belief in the efficacy of the treatment and the attention given
during the sessions may contribute to clients' perception of
improvement, even if the eye movements themselves do not play a
crucial role.
3. Questionable Research Methodology: While there is research
supporting the efficacy of EMDR, critics argue that some studies may
be methodologically flawed. Concerns include small sample sizes, lack
of appropriate control groups, and potential bias in studies conducted or
funded by proponents of EMDR. Additionally, there are debates about
the quality of some early research supporting the approach.
4. Alternative Explanations for Improvement: Critics propose that any
observed benefits of EMDR may be attributed to other factors within
the therapy, such as the supportive therapeutic relationship, exposure
therapy elements, or cognitive restructuring. They argue that these
components, rather than the unique aspects of EMDR, may contribute
to positive outcomes.
5. Limited Generalizability: Some argue that the positive findings from
EMDR research may not generalize well to diverse populations or
different types of trauma. The majority of research supporting EMDR
has been conducted with individuals experiencing single-incident
trauma, such as combat or assault, and its effectiveness with other types
of trauma is debated.
6. Controversial Nature of Eye Movement: The role of eye movement
in EMDR is a subject of controversy. Some critics question whether
eye movements are a necessary component and suggest that any
observed benefits might be due to other forms of bilateral stimulation
or simply the act of focusing attention rather than the specific eye
movements.
7. Something about the pairing of eye movement with something else?
- Explain the contribution of Marcel van den Hout’s experiments for our
understanding of how EMDR might work.
, - Marcel van den Hout is a Dutch psychologist and researcher who has made
significant contributions to the understanding of Eye Movement
Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). His experiments and studies have
provided insights into the mechanisms underlying EMDR and how it might
work. While not exhaustive, here are some key aspects of Marcel van den
Hout's contributions:
1. Working Memory Theory: Marcel van den Hout proposed the
Working Memory Theory as an explanation for how EMDR might be
effective. According to this theory, the bilateral stimulation used in
EMDR (such as guided eye movements) may tax the working memory,
making it more difficult for individuals to vividly maintain distressing
images or thoughts related to traumatic memories. This interference
with working memory could potentially reduce the emotional intensity
and distress associated with traumatic memories.
2. Dual Task Paradigm Experiments: Van den Hout conducted
experiments using a dual task paradigm, where participants engaged in
both the recall of distressing memories and a secondary task, such as
making eye movements or performing a cognitive task. The results
suggested that the dual task condition, involving bilateral stimulation,
led to a decrease in the vividness and emotionality of traumatic
memories compared to conditions without bilateral stimulation.
3. Neurobiological Mechanisms: While not exclusively focused on van
den Hout's work, some studies associated with his research have
explored the neurobiological mechanisms underlying EMDR. These
studies have investigated how bilateral stimulation may affect brain
activity, including the possible role of the prefrontal cortex and the
amygdala in the processing of traumatic memories.
4. Enhanced Memory Integration: Van den Hout's research suggests
that the bilateral stimulation in EMDR may facilitate the integration of
traumatic memories into existing memory networks, making them less
emotionally charged. This process is thought to contribute to the
therapeutic effects of EMDR by helping individuals process and
adaptively store traumatic memories.
5. Follow-up Studies: Van den Hout has been involved in follow-up
studies examining the long-term effects of EMDR. These studies aim to
assess the stability of treatment effects over time and to better
understand the mechanisms contributing to sustained symptom
reduction following EMDR therapy.
- Describe the essence of the network approach (as discussed in the third article
“Psychiatric symptoms as pathogens”) and explain how this perspective
essentially differs from the traditional latent factor models of mental disorders.
- The network approach to mental disorders is a relatively recent perspective that
views mental disorders as complex systems of interconnected symptoms.
Instead of considering mental disorders as caused by an underlying latent
