Exploring the Biological Approach to Psychological Abnormalities
Homework type: Essay
Added: today at 10:30
Summary:
Explore the biological approach to psychological abnormalities and learn how brain structure, genetics, and chemistry explain mental disorders in the UK context.
Psychology Abnormality Part 2: The Biological Approach
The study of psychological abnormality occupies an essential place within the discipline of psychology, as it seeks to explain the vast array of mental disorders that affect individuals and societies. The challenge of defining and understanding what constitutes ‘abnormal’ behaviour has preoccupied scholars, clinicians, and philosophers for centuries. While multiple models have jostled for primacy—ranging from psychodynamic theorising to behavioural perspectives—the biological approach remains a cornerstone in contemporary psychological thought, particularly within the UK educational framework where empirical, scientific rigour is highly prized.
This essay examines the biological approach to abnormality, which asserts that deviations in thought, emotion, or behaviour arise from physical causes such as anomalies in brain structure, genetic inheritance, and chemical imbalances. I will explore the foundational assumptions underpinning this model, delve into its main explanatory avenues, and consider significant case studies and research evidence arising largely from British and European sources. Subsequent sections will scrutinise the treatments that have emerged from this approach, weigh its strengths and weaknesses, and discuss the manifold ethical and philosophical considerations it raises. Through this thorough analysis, I aim to illustrate both the significant contributions and inherent limitations of the biological approach to understanding abnormality.
---
Section 1: Foundations and Assumptions of the Biological Approach
Central to the biological approach is the premise that mental disorders are fundamentally rooted in physiological disturbances. According to this model, psychic suffering or atypical behaviour can usually be traced back to processes within the body: malfunctioning brain regions, inherited genetic vulnerabilities, disrupted neurochemistry, or physical insults such as traumatic injury or infection. Accordingly, the approach champions the use of physical interventions—most notably, pharmacological treatments and, in some cases, surgical procedures—to address these underlying biological mechanisms.In the UK, the biological approach is often contrasted with psychological models, such as the cognitive-behavioural and psychodynamic perspectives, and with sociocultural frameworks that foreground social, economic, and environmental factors. While psychological models may ascribe abnormality to dysfunctional thought processes or unresolved conflicts, and sociocultural ones to societal or familial strain, the biological model insists on the primacy of the organism: the person as a complex biological system.
This approach’s credibility is bolstered by its allure of scientific legitimacy. From advances in neuroimaging at institutions such as University College London to landmark twin studies conducted across British populations, the biological approach strives for objectivity through quantifiable metrics, making use of the UK’s strong legacy in medical research and neuroscience.
---
Section 2: Biological Causes of Abnormality
A useful way of organising the biological causes of abnormality is through the “BING” mnemonic: Brain Injury, Infections, Neurotransmitters, and Genetics.2.1 Brain Injury and Brain Structure Abnormalities
Structural integrity of the brain is crucial to normal functioning. Damage or congenital abnormalities in particular regions can have profound effects on emotion, cognition, and personality. A quintessential example is the historical case of Phineas Gage, a 19th-century railway foreman who survived a catastrophic injury to his frontal lobe. Post-accident, Gage’s personality reportedly altered dramatically—from responsible and amiable to irritable and impulsive—thereby demonstrating the vital role played by the frontal lobes in self-regulation and social behaviour. While Gage’s case has become something of a psychological parable, it is necessary to recognise its limitations: individual variability and the unique severity of his injury caution us against overgeneralising.In the context of disorders like schizophrenia, British researchers have identified links between enlargement of the brain's ventricles and the manifestation of psychotic symptoms (as in the findings of Professor Robin Murray at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London). Similarly, abnormalities in the hypothalamus have been implicated in the development of eating disorders, with evidence suggesting disruption in hunger and satiety regulation. The advent of sophisticated neuroimaging tools—such as MRI and PET scans—now allows clinicians to correlate symptom clusters with observable brain abnormalities, thereby lending empirical backing to the biological model.
2.2 Infections and Neurological Impact
While once dismissed as unimportant to mental health, infections have increasingly been recognised as contributors to psychiatric abnormality. Historically, the link between syphilitic infection and general paresis of the insane (a condition involving both cognitive decline and psychotic features) offered a compelling example of an infectious agent giving rise to severe psychological disruption. The landmark realisation that treating syphilis with antibiotics could reverse mental impairment provided perhaps the earliest medical cure for a mental disorder.Contemporary research, including British studies, now explores possible viral contributions to conditions such as schizophrenia—one hypothesis postulates that maternal infection with influenza during pregnancy increases the risk of offspring developing the disorder. Despite tantalising clues, establishing clear causality remains challenging due to the many pathways through which infections may impact the brain: inflammatory processes, the crossing of toxins or pathogens across the blood-brain barrier, and subsequent interference with neural development.
2.3 Neurotransmitters and Chemical Imbalances
Neurotransmitters—chemical messengers that facilitate communication between nerve cells—are pivotal to the normal functioning of the human brain. Dysregulation of these chemicals is linked with various psychiatric conditions. The so-called dopamine hypothesis proposes that an excess of dopamine activity in certain brain areas underpins the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, such as delusions and hallucinations.Conversely, deficiencies in serotonin are strongly associated with depression and anxiety disorders. Pharmacological interventions such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (including widely prescribed drugs like sertraline and fluoxetine in NHS practice) are designed to boost serotonin availability, frequently resulting in alleviation of mood disturbance. Experimental studies using psychoactive compounds like LSD have also illustrated how artificial manipulation of neurotransmitter systems can temporarily induce symptoms reminiscent of psychosis, further reinforcing the connection.
However, it is rarely as simple as a ‘chemical imbalance’; most disorders involve complex interactions between multiple neurotransmitter systems—a factor that often complicates both diagnosis and treatment.
2.4 Genetic Influences and Heritability
The influence of heredity on psychological abnormality is perhaps most strikingly demonstrated through twin and family studies. Research conducted by British psychiatric geneticists, such as those at Cardiff University’s MRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, has illuminated the increased risk for disorders such as schizophrenia among those who share greater genetic overlap: monozygotic (identical) twins show substantially higher ‘concordance rates’ for the disorder compared to their dizygotic (fraternal) counterparts, although never reaching 100%.Recent advances in molecular genetics have revealed the polygenic nature of most psychological disorders—meaning they arise from the cumulative effects of numerous genes, often interacting with environmental triggers. This interaction, termed epigenetics, acknowledges that gene expression can be altered by factors like trauma, nutritional deficits, or exposure to toxins, thereby contributing to the observed variation in symptom expression among individuals.
---
Section 3: Treatments Based on the Biological Model
Given its somatic focus, the biological approach has led to the development and widespread adoption of various physical and pharmacological treatments. Chief among these are medications such as antipsychotics (e.g. clozapine and risperidone for schizophrenia), antidepressants (SSRIs, tricyclics), and mood stabilisers (such as lithium for bipolar disorder). These drugs often act by altering neurotransmitter availability or sensitivity, delivering relatively rapid symptom relief and facilitating community-based care rather than prolonged hospitalisation.Other physical interventions include electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), still occasionally employed for intractable depression within NHS hospitals. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a non-invasive procedure, is a more recent innovation offering promise in the treatment of mood disorders. By contrast, obsolete procedures such as the prefrontal lobotomy—once widely practised in the mid-twentieth century, including at institutions like Bethlem Royal Hospital—are now viewed as ethically indefensible, highlighting the importance of ongoing critical scrutiny.
The sheer efficacy of certain biological treatments, especially for acute psychosis or severe depression, is well documented. Nevertheless, problems remain. Many medications produce significant side effects—from weight gain and sedation to movement disorders—and none offer a guaranteed or complete cure. Perhaps most tellingly, some individuals continue to suffer substantial impairment despite optimal medical management, suggesting that biological interventions, while powerful, are far from infallible.
---
Section 4: Critical Evaluation of the Biological Approach
4.1 Strengths
A major asset of the biological approach is its scientific foundation. Its theories generate clear, measurable hypotheses that can be tested through neuroimaging, biochemical assays, and genetic analysis. The approach has also fuelled the creation of treatments that, despite imperfections, have transformed the prognosis for many suffering from mental illness. Moreover, the drive towards objective measurement fits neatly within the UK’s evidence-based medical model, which prioritises interventions supported by rigorous empirical support.4.2 Weaknesses
Yet, the biological approach also attracts substantial criticism. One issue is *causality*: does a particular brain abnormality cause the disorder, or does long-term illness give rise to the observed changes? For example, do enlarged ventricles in schizophrenia result from the disease itself or from years of antipsychotic medication? Similarly, much of the genetic evidence is correlational rather than causative.The approach is often accused of reductionism—oversimplifying the rich tapestry of human experience by reducing it to mere biological processes, and ignoring psychological and social contributions. The fact that no disorder shows complete genetic concordance, and that identical genetic make-up can yield vastly different outcomes, points to the importance of environmental and personal factors.
4.3 Sociocultural and Ethical Critiques
Additionally, the biological model has been critiqued for neglecting social determinants such as poverty, trauma, or inequality—factors with demonstrable links to mental health. The psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, whose work remains influential in the UK, provocatively questioned whether mental illnesses were true medical diseases or rather “problems in living” misclassified as pathology.Concerns have also been raised regarding personal responsibility and legal implications: if a disorder is purely biological, to what extent is the sufferer accountable for their actions? Moreover, the potential for increased stigma or discrimination based on biological diagnoses or genetic risk cannot be ignored, especially as genetic testing becomes more prevalent.
---
Section 5: Philosophical and Ethical Considerations
From the standpoint of philosophy, determining responsibility and agency in the context of biologically-based mental illness is deeply contentious. How far should society excuse behaviour if it springs from genetic or neurological anomalies? Such questions come to the fore in legal deliberations over diminished responsibility or fitness to plead.Consent in treatment presents another challenge. Cases where individuals lack insight (anosognosia) or the capacity to make reasoned decisions raise pressing concerns about autonomy and compulsory intervention—a dilemma UK clinicians occasionally confront under the Mental Health Act.
The growing field of genetic testing for psychiatric risk factors also raises bioethical issues: potential misuse, breach of confidentiality, and discrimination by employers or insurers. Safeguarding against such misuse is paramount as our genetic understanding deepens.
Importantly, calls for a more holistic model—recognising the intertwining of biological, psychological, and socio-environmental factors—have grown louder, with the burgeoning field of biopsychosocial psychiatry leading the way in modern British mental health care.
---
Conclusion
In summary, the biological approach to psychological abnormality has reshaped our understanding of mental disorders, rooting them firmly in the soil of the body’s complex biology. Through the careful study of brain structure, infections, neurotransmitter systems, and genetic transmission, UK-based science has illuminated possible causes, enabled effective medical treatments, and provided hope to countless individuals and their families.Nevertheless, this model is no panacea. Its limitations—causal ambiguities, risk of reductionism, and neglect of the social world—demand that clinicians and researchers remain vigilant and critical. Only through the blend of biological, psychological, and sociocultural perspectives—the very ethos of contemporary UK psychology—can the richness and complexity of human behaviour be fully understood and humanely addressed. As research continues to evolve, so too must our approaches, always guided by ethical reflection and a commitment to the dignity and individuality of those in distress.
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in