SOCIOCULTURAL FACTORS AO3

• One study of support for the urbanicity approach is that it provides a clear explanation for the disparity of the diagnoses of schizophrenia in both urban and rural areas. Faris and Dunham (1939) reported a greater incidence of the disorder when comparing the densely populated city of Chicago with the less populated outskirts of the city. This suggests that environmental factors of urban life hold a prominent involvement within the diagnoses and duration of schizophrenia, such as pollution, overcrowding or drug abuse. As a result, this provides a greater support for the urbanicity approach.
• One refuting evidence for the urbancity explanation is the idea, which was proposed by McKenzie et al(2002), that suggests higher levels of social capital may protect us from stress. It is unclear exactly how the mechanism that underlies urban city seems to work; it may just be social stress, or it may be a more complex interplay of other possible environmental risk factors, such as pollution.
• McKenzie et al refutes this social psychological explanation of schizophrenia and the idea that living in an urban area is the cause of schizophrenia, suggesting higher levels of social capital found in those living in urban, inner city areas actually may protect or buffer us from stress.
• One methodological issue is the social drift hypothesis as it proposes that if someone suffers from a mental disorder, they are more likely to develop schizophrenia. This is due to the fact that individuals demonstrate a decline in their socioeconomic status. Some of these factors include social class, status, poverty, low incomes, and pollution.
• This criticise the urbanicity explanation as it s suggesting that heavy populated areas are not causing schizophrenia but rather that the schizophrenia forces individual to move to urban areas, thus the reason for higher incidents of schizophrenia in urban areas.