OCR Psychology A Level Book 2 sample

practice questions 1. Assess the validity of research investigating the medical model. [6] 2. Discuss the nature–nurture debate in relation to the medical model. [8] 3. With reference to the key research by Gottesman et al ., outline the genetic explanation of mental illness. [10] Split a sheet of paper in half with one side labelled nature and the other side labelled nurture. Create arguments, using quantitative data from Gottesman et al .’s study that support each side of the debate. Which argument ends up with the most evidence? You could repeat this activity for other debates such as reductionism and holism, or free will and determinism. Links with debates Nature–nurture The genetic explanation of mental illness predominantly supports the nature side of the debate. It suggests that we are born with certain characteristics which underlie mental illness. However, the brain abnormality and biochemical explanations present an alternative picture. Abnormalities in a person’s brain can occur due to events in their lifetime, for example brain damage through accident or undertaking behaviours such as use of cannabis or other drugs can affect neurotransmitter activity. This supports the nurture side of the debate because it takes into account the role of events that occur after birth. Nature and nurture are no longer seen as separate explanations of mental illness. The diathesis-stress model is a way to explain the interaction. Genes create a vulnerability (diathesis) for a disorder, which will only actually develop if there is some form of life experience that triggers it (stress). A person may be born with genes that predispose them to schizophrenia but not all people with such genes do develop the disorder—as shown in the study by Gottesman et al . Free will /determinism The medical model is largely determinist . The medical model suggests that mental illness is determined by the factors discussed in this topic, such as neurotransmitters, genes and brain structure. All of these factors are beyond personal control and therefore are determinist. Even if environmental factors play a role these too may not be within a person’s control. On the other hand there is some evidence for free will . For example, some people with schizophrenia teach themselves ways of controlling their hallucinations, using techniques such as saying ‘stop’ to themselves when they experience one, humming or listening to loud music to drown out voices, or deliberately focusing on the hallucinations rather than trying to avoid them. This demonstrates that patients can exert some free will over their symptoms. Reductionism/holism All three of the explanations within the medical model are reductionist . They each break down a complex behaviour of mental illness into the simplest form, whether that is at the level of biochemical, genes or brain structures. However, as discussed above, current understanding of disorders uses the diathesis-stress model, taking into account biological explanations as well as psychological and social explanations. This viewpoint is much more holistic . This box looks at links between the debates and both key research/ background research. We have not covered all eight of the debates in the specification, so you might think about the other three: individual/situational explanations, ethical considerations and psychology as a science. The case for genetic determinism— and the medical model. Usefulness of research The biochemical explanation has proved particularly useful, as it has formed the basis for much of the modern-day treatment for mental illness. Drug treatments for schizophrenia and depression are based on the knowledge that abnormal levels of neurotransmitters cause the illness and therefore adjusting those levels using medication can help to reduce at least some of the symptoms. Antipsychotic medication is discussed in detail on the next spread. Evidence for the role of neurotransmitters being involved in schizophrenia initially came from drug studies involving dopamine antagonists (which block dopamine receptors). The problem with this is that the use of drugs that block dopamine (antipsychotic drugs) is based on the assumption that dopamine is responsible for schizophrenia—and this assumption initially came from research into the antipsychotic drugs. This is a circular argument. This means that such drug therapies’ usefulness is undermined. It is useful to know and understand how genetics can influence the development of mental illness, because if medical professionals can be aware of risk factors they may be able to provide interventions for those most at risk. For example, if two people with schizophrenia meet and decide they want to have children, they may be advised to seek genetic counselling beforehand. They can be made aware of the heightened risk of having a child who would develop a serious mental illness. This would allow them to make a fully informed decision and to seek relevant support. Conducting socially sensitive research The potential implications of research into the medical model could be quite controversial. Parents who have experienced mental illness now know there is an increased risk of their offspring developing a mental illness. This is distressing for them and may make parenthood a difficult decision. Furthermore, such knowledge could lead to a eugenic argument—that reproduction should be prevented in certain groups of people, such as people with serious mental illnesses, because of the ‘damage’ to the human gene pool. 31 Linking it together: Evaluation of research on the medical model