Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:23:10.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

39 - Commentary on “The Impact of Faculty Psychology and Theories of Psychological Causation on the Origins of Modern Psychiatric Nosology”

from Section 13

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2020

By
Gregory A. Miller
Edited by
Kenneth S. Kendler ,
Josef Parnas  and
Peter Zachar
Kenneth S. Kendler
Affiliation:
Virginia Commonwealth University
Josef Parnas
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Peter Zachar
Affiliation:
Auburn University, Montgomery
Get access

Summary

Kendler’s chapter provides a compelling account of how little evolved important premises of twentieth- and twenty-first-century psychopathology concepts represented in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals (DSMs) are from frameworks developed in earlier centuries that came to the fore in the nineteenth century, emphasizing a categorical distinction between cognition and emotion in characterizing broad classes of disorders. He then poses questions about how the recent NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative relates to that heritage. The present commentary similarly places RDoC in that tradition yet differentiates RDoC from the DSMs. By design, RDoC is nonreductionistic and initially much less comprehensive and much more research based, largely confining its substantive elements to intersections of well-developed psychological constructs (important in but not confined to) psychopathology with well-developed psychological and biological data. As such, RDoC is much better positioned to support and drive recently growing interest in computational psychiatry.

Keywords

faculty psychologypsychopathologyreductionismlevels of analysisResearch Domain CriteriaRDoC matrixcomputational psychiatry
Type
Chapter
Information
Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives
 , pp. 479 - 490
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
Andreasen, N.C. (1984) The broken brain: The biological revolution in psychiatry. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Cramer, A.O.J., & Kalis, A. (2019) ‘Brain disorders? Not really: Why network structures block reductionism in psychopathology research.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, e2: 1–63.Google Scholar
Cuthbert, B.N. (2014) ‘The RDoC framework: Facilitating transition from ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that integrate neuroscience and psychopathology.’ World Psychiatry, 13, 28–35.Google Scholar
Cuthbert, B.N., & Insel, T R. (2010) ‘Toward new approaches to psychotic disorders: The NIMH Research Domain Criteria project.’ Schizophrenia Bulletin, 36, 1061–1062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuthbert, B.N., & Insel, T.R. (2013) ‘Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: The seven pillars of RDoC.’ BMC Medicine, 11, 126.Google Scholar
Cuthbert, B.N., & Kozak, M.J. (2013) ‘Constructing constructs for psychopathology: The NIMH research domain criteria.’ Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 928–937.Google Scholar
Frances, A. (2013) Saving normal: An insider’s revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the medicalization of ordinary life. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Frances, A. (2014) ‘RDoC is necessary, but very oversold.’ World Psychiatry, 13, 47–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heller, W. (1993) ‘Neuropsychological mechanisms of individual differences in emotion, personality, and arousal.’ Neuropsychology, 7, 476–489.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1738) Treatise of human nature. Book 2. Of passions. Part 3. Section 3. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treatise_of_Human_Nature/Book_2:_Of_the_passions/Part_3/Section_3, accessed 06/29/19.Google Scholar
Hyman, S.E. (2010) ‘The diagnosis of mental disorders: The problem of reification.’ Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 155–179.Google Scholar
Insel, T. R. (2014) ‘The NIMH research domain criteria (RDoC) project: Precision medicine for psychiatry.’ American Journal of Psychiatry, 171, 395–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Insel, T.R., Cuthbert, B.N., Garvey, M.A., Heinssen, R.K., Pine, D.S., Quinn, K.J., … Wang, P.S. (2010) ‘Research domain criteria: Toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders.’ American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 748–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, P., & Cambrosio, A. (2004) ‘Does biomedicine entail the successful reduction of pathology to biology?’ Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 47, 357–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kozak, M.J., & Cuthbert, B.N. (2016) ‘The NIMH research domain criteria initiative: Background, issues, and pragmatics.’ Psychophysiology, 53, 286–297.Google Scholar
Lake, J.I., Yee, C.M., & Miller, G.A. (2017) ‘Misunderstanding RDoC.’ Mechanisms of mental disorders special issue. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, 170–174.Google Scholar
Lang, P.J. (1984) ‘Dead souls: Or why the neurobehavioral science of emotion should pay attention to cognitive science.’ In Elbert, T., Rockstroh, B., Lutzenberger, W., & Birbaumer, N. (Eds.), Self-regulation of the brain and behavior (pp. 255–272). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lang, P.J., Bradley, M.M., & Cuthbert, B.N. (1990) ‘Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex.’ Psychological Review, 97, 377–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lilienfeld, S.O., & Treadway, M.T. (2016) ‘Clashing diagnostic approaches: DSM-ICD versus RDoC.’ Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 435–463.Google Scholar
Meehl, P.E. (1978) ‘Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald and the slow progress of soft psychology.’ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A. (1996) ‘How we think about cognition, emotion, and biology in psychopathology.’ Psychophysiology, 33, 615–628.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A. (2004) ‘Another quasi-thirty years of slow progress.’ Applied and Preventive Psychology: Current Scientific Perspectives, 11, 61–64.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A. (2010) ‘Mistreating psychology in the decades of the brain.’ Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 716–743.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A., Crocker, L.D., Spielberg, J.M., Infantolino, Z.P, & Heller, W. (2013) ‘Issues in localization of brain function: The case of lateralized frontal cortex in cognition, emotion, and psychopathology.’ Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 7, 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G.A., & Keller, J. (2000) ‘Psychology and neuroscience: Making peace.’ Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 212–215.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A., Rockstroh, B.S., Hamilton, H.K., & Yee, C.M. (2016) ‘Psychophysiology as a core strategy in RDoC.’ Psychophysiology, 53, 410–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G.A., & Yee, C.M. (2015) ‘Moving psychopathology forward.’ Psychological Inquiry, 26, 263–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osgood, C., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957) The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Russell, J. A. (1980) ‘A circumplex model of affect.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.Google Scholar
Russell, J. A. (2003) ‘Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion.’ Psychological Review, 110, 145–172.Google Scholar
Sanislow, C.A., Pine, D.S., Quinn, K.J., Kozak, M.J., Garvey, M.A., Heinssen, R.K., … Cuthbert, B.N. (2010) ‘Developing constructs for psychopathology research: Research domain criteria.’ Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 631–639.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S.J., Lilienfeld, S.O., Meca, A., & Sauvigné, K.C. (2016) ‘The role of neuroscience within psychology: A call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness.’ American Psychologist, 71, 52–70.Google Scholar
Sharp, P.B., & Eldar, E. (2019) ‘Computational models of anxiety: Nascent efforts and future directions.’ Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, P.B., & Miller, G.A. (2019) ‘Reduction and autonomy in psychology and neuroscience: A call for pragmatism.’ Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 39, 18–31.Google Scholar
Thomas, J.G., & Sharp, P.B. (2019) ‘Mechanistic science: A new approach to comprehensive psychopathology research that relates psychological and biological phenomena.’ Clinical Psychological Science, 7, 196–215.Google Scholar
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985) ‘Toward a consensual structure of mood.’ Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219–235.Google Scholar
Yee, C.M., Javitt, D.C., & Miller, G.A. (2015) ‘Replacing DSM categorical analyses with dimensional analyses in psychiatry research: The research domain criteria initiative.’ JAMA Psychiatry, 72, 1159–1160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zachar, P. (2006) ‘The classification of emotion and scientific realism.’ Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26, 120–138.Google Scholar
Zachar, P., & Ellis, R. D. (Eds.). (2012) Categorical versus dimensional models of affect: A seminar of the theories of Panksepp and Russell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zachar, P., Krueger, R. F., & Kendler, K. S. (2016) ‘Personality disorder in DSM-5: An oral history.’ Psychological Medicine, 46, 1–10.Google Scholar
Zachar, P., Regier, D.A., & Kendler, K. (2019) ‘The aspirations for a paradigm shift in DSM-5: An oral history.’ Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 207(9), 778–784.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×