general evaluation

• One of the main strengths of biological explanations for schizophrenia is their high scientific credibility. These explanations are grounded in measurable, objective evidence, such as brain scans, neurochemical analysis, and genetic studies, which give them strong empirical support. For example, research consistently shows structural abnormalities in the brains of some individuals with schizophrenia, such as enlarged ventricles, and a higher concordance rate for schizophrenia in identical twins compared to fraternal twins.
• These findings support the idea that biological factors—like genetics or dopamine dysregulation—play a significant role in the disorder. The use of advanced scientific methods lends validity to the biological model and aligns it with the nomothetic approach, which seeks general laws of behavior through scientific investigation.
• Despite its scientific strengths, a key limitation of biological explanations is that they often struggle to establish causation rather than just correlation. For example, while studies may find an association between dopamine levels and symptoms of schizophrenia, it's unclear whether these changes cause the disorder or are simply a consequence of it—or even the result of antipsychotic medication.
• Similarly, brain abnormalities may be linked to schizophrenia, but it's possible they develop over time due to chronic illness or social isolation, rather than being a cause. This problem undermines the explanatory power of the biological approach, as it cannot definitively determine what triggers the onset of schizophrenia. Without clear causality, biological explanations risk oversimplifying a highly complex mental health condition.
• Another criticism of biological explanations is that they are often biologically deterministic, suggesting that individuals are governed by their genes, brain chemistry, or neural structures, with little room for personal agency or environmental influence. This perspective implies that people with a biological predisposition to schizophrenia are destined to develop it, which can lead to pessimism about recovery and reinforce stigma
• It may also result in a narrow focus on drug treatments, while ignoring the potential benefits of therapy, social support, and personal coping strategies. Although the biological approach has led to important medical treatments, such as antipsychotic drugs, it can be ethically problematic if it limits patient autonomy or reinforces the idea that they are simply “broken brains.” A more balanced approach is needed to avoid these deterministic pitfalls.
• Given the limitations of purely biological explanations, many researchers now favor an interactionist approach, such as the diathesis-stress model, which combines biological vulnerability with environmental stressors. This model recognizes that while genetic or neurochemical factors may increase risk, the actual development of schizophrenia often depends on external influences such as trauma, substance use, or family dysfunction.
• This approach is more holistic, considering both nature and nurture, and allows for more personalized treatment plans that might include a mix of medication, therapy, and lifestyle support. It also reflects the idiographic approach, by acknowledging that each individual’s experience with schizophrenia is unique and shaped by a range of interacting factors. Overall, the interactionist model offers a more complete and compassionate framework for understanding and treating schizophrenia.