Book contents
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Advance Praise for Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- General Introduction
- Part I Neuroscience, Mechanisms, and RDoC
- Part II Phenomenology, Biological Psychology, and the Mind–Body Problem
- Part III Taxonomy, Integration, and Multiple Levels of Explanation
- Section 8
- Section 9
- Section 10
- Section 11
- Section 12
- Section 13
- 37 Introduction
- 38 The Impact of Faculty Psychology and Theories of Psychological Causation on the Origins of Modern Psychiatric Nosology
- 39 Commentary on “The Impact of Faculty Psychology and Theories of Psychological Causation on the Origins of Modern Psychiatric Nosology”
- Section 14
- Section 15
- Index
- References
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
Book contents
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Advance Praise for Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- General Introduction
- Part I Neuroscience, Mechanisms, and RDoC
- Part II Phenomenology, Biological Psychology, and the Mind–Body Problem
- Part III Taxonomy, Integration, and Multiple Levels of Explanation
- Section 8
- Section 9
- Section 10
- Section 11
- Section 12
- Section 13
- 37 Introduction
- 38 The Impact of Faculty Psychology and Theories of Psychological Causation on the Origins of Modern Psychiatric Nosology
- 39 Commentary on “The Impact of Faculty Psychology and Theories of Psychological Causation on the Origins of Modern Psychiatric Nosology”
- Section 14
- Section 15
- Index
- References
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
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Levels of Analysis in PsychopathologyCross-Disciplinary Perspectives, pp. 479 - 490Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
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