evaluating cognitive explanation

• SUPPORTING RE - RO effective metarepresentation

  } Barch et al (99) - comp Stroop test performance (colours of words) of SZ + control

  > SZ = slower, more mistakes comp to control

  • ev - SZ can't filter info as effectively as non-SZ > supports Frith = attentional filters of SZ = defective
  • standardised (lab + controlled) > reliable + internal validity
  • low ecological val + other reasons for poor performance (can't think as quick, ventricles, neurological differences)
• REDUCTIONIST

  accounts for certain symptoms being due to faulty cognitive processes > alone - not effective in explaining other symptoms + other important causes = ignored

  • insufficient exp to explain all SZ symptoms
  • can't rely on exp alone to fully explain SZ cause

  COUNTER - useful applications > treatment / modification
• SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS - used in real world

  } Kuipers et al (97) - 50% patients with +ve + distressing SZ symptoms (med resistant) (CBT + standard care) = reduction in symptoms

  31% = SZ in control (only standard care) benefitted

  • useful exp > therapy used to modify cognition > highly effective in ppl = don't respond to drugs
  • val - cognitive processes - centre of explanation
  • adds val to exp > suggests when patients modify cognition > helps reduce / manage symptoms

  COUNTER - doesn't give reason why they happen > cause
• DESCRIBES SZ - DOESN'T EXPLAIN ROOT CAUSE

  only describes cognitive issues that may underlie symptoms - rather - identifying cause

  approach suggests - one SZ cause = cognitive deficits (faulty attentional processes) > fails to explain origin of these issues

  • insufficient explanation - doesn't account for full cause of disorder
• CONCLUSION

  • scientific + logical (objective + standardised evidence) - compared to psychodynamic
  • doesn't put blame on families / mothers
  • large body of experimental evidence
  • cognitive treatment - effective for some, not all > may not be sole cause > need to identify other factors