Book contents
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Advance Praise for Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- General Introduction
- Part I Neuroscience, Mechanisms, and RDoC
- Part II Phenomenology, Biological Psychology, and the Mind–Body Problem
- Section 4
- Section 5
- Section 6
- Section 7
- 19 Introduction
- 20 Challenges in the Relationships between Psychological and Biological Phenomena in Psychopathology
- 21 Non-reductionism, Eliminativism, and Modularity in RDoC: Thoughts about a Progressive Mechanistic Science
- Part III Taxonomy, Integration, and Multiple Levels of Explanation
- Index
- References
20 - Challenges in the Relationships between Psychological and Biological Phenomena in Psychopathology
from Section 7
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2020
Book contents
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Advance Praise for Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- General Introduction
- Part I Neuroscience, Mechanisms, and RDoC
- Part II Phenomenology, Biological Psychology, and the Mind–Body Problem
- Section 4
- Section 5
- Section 6
- Section 7
- 19 Introduction
- 20 Challenges in the Relationships between Psychological and Biological Phenomena in Psychopathology
- 21 Non-reductionism, Eliminativism, and Modularity in RDoC: Thoughts about a Progressive Mechanistic Science
- Part III Taxonomy, Integration, and Multiple Levels of Explanation
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter addresses three questions posed for the 2018 Copenhagen conference. We argue that reduction in the widely assumed sense of eliminating psychological constructs is not a feasible option in psychopathology research. We argue that the popular “levels of analysis” metaphor is more problematic than helpful. We argue that a recent movement in philosophy of science, known as the new mechanists, offers a promising alternative to the naïve biological reductionism that has driven much thinking and research on psychopathology in the Decades of the Brain. Finally, we evaluate the NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative in the context of these three questions, citing key features that facilitate moving clinical research forward more quickly and more effectively than what has characterized the field for decades. RDoC avoids reductionism, fosters integration of psychological and biological constructs, methods, and data, and is well suited to the emerging research agenda in the psychopathology literature.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Levels of Analysis in PsychopathologyCross-Disciplinary Perspectives, pp. 238 - 266Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
Bartholomew, M. E., Yee, C. M., Heller, W., Miller, G. A., & Spielberg, J. M. (2019) “Reconfiguration of brain networks supporting inhibition of emotional challenge.” NeuroImage, 186, 350–357.Google Scholar
Bates, T. C., Lewis, G. J., & Weiss, A. (2013) “Childhood socioeconomic status amplifies genetic effects of adult intelligence.” Psychological Science, 24, 2111–2116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchaine, T. P., & Klein, D. N. (2017) “Developmental psychopathology and the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.” In Beauchaine, T. P. & Hinshaw, S. P. (Eds.), Child and adolescent psychopathology (3rd ed., pp. 33–67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2007) “Reducing psychology while maintaining its autonomy via mechanistic explanations.” In Schouton, M. & de Jong, H. L. (Eds.), The matter of mind: Philosophical essays of psychology, neuroscience, and reduction (pp. 172–198). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2017). “Explicating top-down causation using networks and dynamics.” Philosophy of Science, 84(2), 253–274.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2008) “From reduction back to higher levels.” Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 559–564). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Berenbaum, H. (2013) “Classification and psychopathology research.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 894–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolton, D. (2013). “Should mental disorders be regarded as brain disorders? 21st century mental health sciences and implications for research and training.” World Psychiatry, 12(1), 24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D., & Cramer, A. O. (2013) “Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O. J., & Kalis, A. (2019) “Brain disorders? Not really: Why network structures block reductionism in psychopathology research.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42(e2), 1–63.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O. J., Schmittmann, V. D., Epskamp, S., & Waldorp, L. J. (2011) “The small world of psychopathology.” PLoS ONE 6, e27407.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Rhemtulla, M., Cramer, A. O. J., Van der Maas, H. L. J., Scheffer, M., & Dolan, C. V. (2016) “Kinds versus continua: A review of psychometric approaches to uncover the structure of psychiatric constructs.” Psychological Medicine, 46, 1567–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennand, K. J., Simone, A., Jou, J., Gelboin-Burkhart, C., Tran, N., Sangar, S., … McCarthy, S. (2011) “Modelling schizophrenia using human induced pluripotent stem cells.” Nature, 473(7346), 221–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BBRF/Brain & Behavior Research Foundation. (2018, April) “What’s new with TMS for depression and other brain diseases.” https://us3.campaign-archive.com/?u=c6e89b4de3dfd70e795490632&id=7b7ae091ba&e=1a018af71d, accessed 04/05/18.Google Scholar
Carpenter, W. T. Jr, & Davis, J. M. (2012) “Another view of the history of antipsychotic drug discovery and development.” Molecular Psychiatry, 17, 1168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casey, B. J., Oliveri, M. E., & Insel, T. (2014) “A neurodevelopmental perspective on the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework.” Biological Psychiatry, 76, 350–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayson, P. E., & Miller, G. A. (2017) “Psychometric considerations in the measurement of event-related brain potentials: Guidelines for measurement and reporting.” International Journal of Psychophysiology, 111, 57–67.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2007) Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F., & Bechtel, W. (2007) “Top-down causation without top-down causes.” Biology and Philosophy, 22, 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuthbert, B. N. (2015). “Research Domain Criteria: Toward future psychiatric nosologies.” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 17(1), 89.Google Scholar
Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2010) “Toward new approaches to psychotic disorders: The NIMH Research Domain Criteria project.” Schizophrenia Bulletin, 36, 1061–1062.Google Scholar
Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2013) “Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: The seven pillars of RDoC.” BMC Medicine, 11, 126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuthbert, B. N., & Kozak, M. J. (2013) “Constructing constructs for psychopathology: The NIMH research domain criteria.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 928–937.Google Scholar
Davis, J. M. (1976) “Recent developments in the drug treatment of schizophrenia.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 133, 208–214.Google ScholarPubMed
Engstrom, E. J., & Kendler, K. S. (2015) “Emil Kraepelin: Icon and reality.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 1190–1196.Google Scholar
Ferrante, M., Redish, A. D., Oquendo, M. A., Averbeck, B. B., Kinnane, M. E., & Gordon, J. A. (2018) “Computational psychiatry: A report from the 2017 NIMH workshop on opportunities and challenges.” Molecular Psychiatry, 24(4):479–483.Google Scholar
Frances, A. (2014) “RDoC is necessary, but very oversold.” World Psychiatry, 13, 47–49.Google Scholar
Franklin, J. C., Jamieson, J. P., Glenn, C. R., & Nock, M. K. (2015) “How developmental psychopathology theory and research can inform the research domain criteria (RDoC) project.” Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44, 280–290.Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Stephan, K. E., Montague, R., & Dolan, R. J. (2014) “Computational psychiatry: The brain as a phantastic organ.” The Lancet Psychiatry, 1, 148–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
George, M. S., Lisanby, S. H., Avery, D., McDonald, W. M., Durkalski, V., Pavlicova, M., … Holtzheimer, P. E. (2010) “Daily left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for major depressive disorder: A sham-controlled randomized trial.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 507–516.Google Scholar
Golden, R. R., & Meehl, P. E. (1979) “Detection of the schizoid taxon with MMPI indicators.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 217–233.Google Scholar
Goldfried, M. R. (2016). “On possible consequences of National Institute of Mental Health funding for psychotherapy research and training.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(1), 77.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. A. (2018) “Towards a genomic psychiatry: Recommendations of the Genomics Workgroup of the NAMHC.” Director’s Messages published online March 29, 2018. www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/messages/2018/towards-a-genomic-psychiatry-recommendations-of-the-genomics-workgroup-of-the-namhc.shtml, accessed 01/06/18.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. A. (2019) “From neurobiology to novel medications: A principled approach to translation.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 425–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griesinger, W. (1854) Die Pathologie und Therapie der psychischen Krankheiten. Stuttgart: Krabbe.Google Scholar
Hardcastle, V. G. (1996) How to build a theory in cognitive science. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, S. E. (1998). “NIMH during the tenure of Director Steven E. Hyman, MD: The now and future of NIMH.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 155(Suppl.), 36–40.Google Scholar
Hyman, S. E. (2005). “Addiction: A disease of learning and memory.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 1414–1422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyman, S. E. (2010) “The diagnosis of mental disorders: The problem of reification.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 155–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyman, S. E. (2012) “Revolution stalled.” Science Translational Medicine, 4, 155cm11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Insel, T. R., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2009) “Endophenotypes: Bridging genomic complexity and disorder heterogeneity.” Biological Psychiatry, 66, 988–989.Google Scholar
Insel, T. R., Cuthbert, B. N., Garvey, M. A., Heinssen, R. K., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K. J., … Wang, P. S. (2010) “Research domain criteria: Toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 748–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandel, E., & Squire, L. (1992) “Cognitive neuroscience: Editorial overview.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 2, 143–145.Google Scholar
Kendler, K. S. (2005) “‘A gene for…’: The nature of gene action in psychiatric disorders.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 1243–1252.Google Scholar
Kendler, K. S. (2008) “Explanatory models for psychiatric illness.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 695–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, K. S. (2012a) “The dappled nature of causes of psychiatric illness: Replacing the organic functional/hardware-software dichotomy with empirically based pluralism.” Molecular Psychiatry, 17, 377–388.Google Scholar
Kendler, K. S. (2012b) “Levels of explanation in psychiatric and substance use disorders: Implications for the development of an etiologically based nosology.” Molecular Psychiatry, 17, 11–21.Google Scholar
Kendler, K. S., & Campbell, J. (2009) “Interventionist causal models in psychiatry: Repositioning the mind–body problem.” Psychological Medicine, 39, 881–887.Google Scholar
Kendler, K. S., Zachar, P., & Craver, C. (2011) “What kinds of things are psychiatric disorders?” Psychological Medicine, 41, 1143–1150.Google Scholar
Kozak, M. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2016) “The NIMH research domain criteria initiative: Background, issues, and pragmatics.” Psychophysiology, 53, 286–297.Google Scholar
Kozak, M. J., & Miller, G. A. (1982). “Hypothetical constructs versus intervening variables: A re-appraisal of the three-systems model of anxiety assessment.” Behavioral Assessment, 14, 347–358.Google Scholar
Lake, J. I., Yee, C. M., & Miller, G. A. (2017) “Misunderstanding RDoC. Mechanisms of mental disorders special issue,” Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, 170–174.Google Scholar
Laruelle, M. (2013) “The second revision of the dopamine theory of schizophrenia: Implications for treatment and drug development.” Biological Psychiatry, 74, 80–81.Google Scholar
Leshner, A. I. (1997). “Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters.” Science, 278, 45–47.Google Scholar
Leshner, A. I. (2007) “Behavioral science comes of age.” Science, 316, 953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2007) “Cognitive neuroscience and depression: Legitimate versus illegitimate reductionism and five challenges.” Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31, 263–272.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014) “The research domain criteria (RDoC): An analysis of methodological and conceptual challenges.” Behaviour Research and Therapy, 62, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Treadway, M. T. (2016) “Clashing diagnostic approaches: DSM-ICD versus RDoC.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 435–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). “On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables.” Psychological Review, 55, 95–107.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Maj, M. (2013) “Mental disorders as ‘brain disorders’ and Jaspers’ legacy.” World Psychiatry, 12, 1–3.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1996). “Presidential address: How we think about cognition, emotion, and biology in psychopathology.” Psychophysiology, 33, 615–628.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (2010) “Mistreating psychology in the decades of the brain.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 716–743.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Clayson, P. E., & Yee, C. M. (2014) “Hunting genes, hunting endophenotypes.” Psychophysiology, 51, 1329–1330.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Keller, J. (2000) “Psychology and neuroscience: Making peace.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 212–215.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Kozak, M. J. (1993) “A philosophy for the study of emotion: Three-systems theory.” In Birbaumer, N. & Öhman, A. (Eds.), The structure of emotion: Physiological, cognitive and clinical aspects (pp. 31–47). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Rockstroh, B. S., Hamilton, H. K., & Yee, C. M. (2016) “Psychophysiology as a core strategy in RDoC.” Psychophysiology, 53, 410–414.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Yee, C. M. (2015) “Moving psychopathology forward.” Psychological Inquiry, 26, 263–267.Google Scholar
Montague, P. R., Dolan, R. J., Friston, K. J., & Dayan, P. (2012) “Computational psychiatry.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 72–80.Google Scholar
Morris, S. E., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2012) “Research domain criteria: Cognitive systems, neural circuits, and dimensions of behavior.” Dialogues Clinical Neuroscience, 14, 29–37.Google Scholar
National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Genomics. (2018) “Report of the National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Genomics: Opportunities and Challenges of Psychiatric Genetics Research Recommendations Summary.” [Internet]. National Institute of Mental Health. Available from: www.nimh.nih.gov/about/advisory-boards-and-groups/namhc/reports/namhc-genomics-workgroup-research-recommendations-summary.shtml, accessed 29/06/19.Google Scholar
Perera, T., George, M. S., Grammer, G., Janicak, P. G., Pascual-Leone, A., & Wirecki, T S. (2016) “The Clinical TMS Society consensus review and treatment recommendations for TMS therapy for major depressive disorder.” Brain Stimulation, 9, 336–346.Google Scholar
Phillips, M. R. (2014) “Will RDoC hasten the decline of America’s global leadership role in mental health?” World Psychiatry, 13, 40–41.Google Scholar
Piccinini, G., & Craver, C. (2011) “Integrating psychology and neuroscience: Functional analyses as mechanism sketches.” Synthese, 183, 283–311.Google Scholar
Robins, E., & Guze, S. B. (1970) “Establishment of diagnostic validity in psychiatric illness: Its application to schizophrenia.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 983–987.Google Scholar
Sanislow, C. A., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K. J., Kozak, M. J., Garvey, M. A., Heinssen, R. K., … Cuthbert, B. N. (2010) “Developing constructs for psychopathology research: Research domain criteria.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 631–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Meca, A., & Sauvigné, K. C. (2016) “The role of neuroscience within psychology: A call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness.” American Psychologist, 71, 52–70.Google Scholar
Sharp, P. B., & Miller, G. A. (2019) “Reduction and autonomy in psychology and neuroscience: A call for pragmatism.” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 39(1), 18–31.Google Scholar
Sporns, O. (2013) “The human connectome: Origins and challenges.” NeuroImage, 80, 53–61.Google Scholar
Stephan, K. E., & Mathys, C. (2014) “Computational approaches to psychiatry.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 25, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabb, K. (2018, May) “Can psychiatry be precise?” Invited lecture at the “Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry V: The Problems of Multiple Levels, Explanatory Pluralism, Reduction and Emergence” conference, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. G., & Sharp, P. B. (2019) “Mechanistic science: A new approach to comprehensive psychopathology research that relates psychological and biological phenomena.” Clinical Psychological Science, 7(2), 196–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, C., & Bechtel, W. (2007) “Mechanisms and psychological explanation.” In Thagard, P. (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science: Volume 4. Philosophy of psychology and cognitive science (pp. 31–79). New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Yang, A. C., & Tsai, S. J. (2017) “New targets for schizophrenia treatment beyond the dopamine hypothesis.” International Journal of Molecular Science, 18, e1689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yee, C. M., Javitt, D. C., & Miller, G. A. (2015) “Replacing DSM categorical analyses with dimensional analyses in psychiatry research: The research domain criteria initiative.” JAMA Psychiatry, 72, 1159–1160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 5
- Cited by