general evaluation

• One strength of the family dysfunction explanation is that there is supporting evidence linking adverse family environments to the development of schizophrenia. For example, Read et al. (2005) reviewed 46 studies of child abuse and found that 69% of women and 59% of men with schizophrenia had a history of physical or sexual abuse in childhood. This suggests that traumatic or dysfunctional family relationships can act as significant risk factors for the development of schizophrenia.
• Furthermore, the concept of the double-bind theory proposed by Bateson et al. is supported by Berger (1965), who found that schizophrenics reported a higher recall of double-bind statements by their mothers than non-schizophrenics. However, such findings may be affected by recall bias, as patients with schizophrenia may have distorted memories or perceptions of family interactions, thus reducing the validity of this support.
• On the other hand, a major limitation of the family dysfunction explanation is that it is difficult to establish causality. Many of the studies that support the theory are correlational, and therefore cannot determine whether the dysfunctional family environment causes schizophrenia or is a result of having a family member with the disorder. This raises the possibility of reverse causality, undermining the explanatory power of the theory
• Additionally, the theory may be considered socially sensitive, as it places blame on parents —particularly mothers —for their child’s mental illness, potentially leading to guilt and stigma. From an ethical standpoint, this can be seen as problematic, particularly if such blame is not empirically justified.
• Moreover, the theory suffers from reductionism. It attempts to explain schizophrenia purely in psychological terms, ignoring strong biological evidence such as genetic influences and dopamine dysregulation. A more holistic approach, such as the diathesis-stress model, may be more appropriate, as it considers how biological vulnerability interacts with environmental stressors, such as dysfunctional family relationships, to trigger the onset of schizophrenia.
• A major strength of the cognitive explanation for schizophrenia is its ability to account for both positive and negative symptoms through the concept of dysfunctional thought processing. For instance, Frith’s theory suggests that delusions may arise from an inability to accurately monitor one's own thoughts and intentions, while negative symptoms such as avolition may be the result of impairments in goal-directed behaviour due to deficits in executive functioning. This provides a plausible and coherent explanation that aligns with observed symptoms in clinical settings
• However, a limitation is that the cognitive explanation describes the mechanisms of schizophrenia but does not explain why these abnormalities occur in the first place. In this sense, it is more of a description than a full explanation, and it fails to address the underlying causes, such as genetic vulnerability or neurochemical factors. Therefore, it may be more useful as part of a broader multi-level explanation rather than a standalone theory.
• Moreover, the theory may be criticized for its emphasis on internal mental processes while neglecting the social and environmental context of the individual. It does not account for how external factors, such as family stress or societal labeling, might contribute to the development and maintenance of symptoms. In terms of issues and debates, the cognitive explanation is deterministic to an extent, suggesting that cognitive impairments inevitably lead to schizophrenia. Yet, not all individuals with cognitive deficits develop schizophrenia, suggesting that other factors must be at play.