Compare and Contrast two Theories of Major Depression

comparability and Contrast deuce Theories of Major DepressionDepressive disorders argon the most often diagnosed psychopathological disorders the two most common forms of economic crisis are unipolar and bipolar disorders. This essay will focus on unipolar disorder and for simplicity, will be referred to as drop-off. Even though social factors ostensibly contri neverthelesse to clinical depressive disorder, it makes to a greater extent sense that such disorder should micturate biologic basis. Hammen, 1997 proposed four different reasons to support such belief Symptoms of depressive disorder entangle physical changes, opinion appears to run in families, success of medication and grumpy kinds of illness/injury/drugs could give rise to depression. This essay will search the similarities and differences mingled with the biological and psychological explanations of depression, specifically looking for at neurotransmitter disfunction (biochemical factors), genetic factors (twin/adoption studies), Becks surmise of depression (cognitive explanations), Freuds theory (psychodynamic explanation) and vitality events (socio-cultural factors). one biological report for depression is that biochemical factors are involved the look on indicates that depression is caused by a inadequateness of neurotransmitters noradrenaline and serotonin. Norepinephrine levels in the brain are often low in get down patients. In addition, post mortem studies have revealed an increased density of norepinephrine receptors in the brains of cast down suicide victims (Bunny and Davis, 1965). On the other(a) hand, the link between low synaptic serotonin level and depression is back up by the fact that the cerebrospinal fluid in low patients holds a smaller amount of a major serotonin by-product, demonstrating a lower level of serotonin in the brain (McNeal and Cimbolic, 1986). Moreover, Delgado (1994) show low serotonin levels was associated with depressive symptoms by givin g grim patients (on antidepressants) a special diet which lowered their level of tryptophan, one of the precursors of serotonin patients reported depressive symptoms which disappeared when their diet returned to normal. Although the biological explanations of depression have received more research support, the psychological explanations have besides been significant. It is standardizedly that, the biological factors cause the development of depression, while the psychological factors maintain the disorder. It is also likely that two or more factors are needed for such disorder to develop. lot may become depressed only if they have low levels of serotonin, observe helpless and blame themselves for the prohibit events that happen to them (Comer, 2003).An alternative explanation for depression is Becks, 1967 (cited in Davey, 2008) cognitive theory of depression, a psychological account. He proposed that depressed individuals feel the focal point they do since their thinking is b iased towards minus interpretations of the institution this is caused by acquiring a disallow schema during childhood. Such negative schemas are triggered whenever an individual encounters a new situation similar to the trustworthy conditions in which the schemas were learnt. Negative schemas are also subject to authorized cognitive biases in thinking both negative schemas and cognitive biases maintain the negative triad, a negative view of one self, the world and the future. Other cognitive explanations include the learned helplessness theory (failing to control unpleasant experiences) and the discouragement theory (negative expectations of the future). twain explanations differ in terms of treatment. Treatment stemming from the biochemical account (antidepressants) treats the symptoms and not the ultimate cause with only about 65% effectiveness in contrast the cognitive accounts are associated with successful therapies for depression. butler and Beck (2000) concluded that ab out 80% of adults benefited from cognitive therapy which aims to treat the cause of the disorder. Becks cognitive therapy was more successful than drug therapy and had a lower relapse rate, reinforcement the proposition that depression indeed has a cognitive basis. In support, Wu, Buchsbaum, Hershey, Johnson and Bunney (1999) demonstrated that uncontrollable negative events (learned helplessness) led to changes in norepinephrine and serotonin levels boost illustrating how by treating such biochemical changes, the ultimate cause of depression is not dealt with. Despite these differences in treatment, a similarity between the treatments is the effects are not immediate. It takes a number of weeks ahead the effects of drugs (antidepressants) on depression can be noticed regardless of the fact that antidepressants raise serotonin levels immediately low levels of neurotransmitters in that respectfore cannot be the straightforward explanation for depression (Kennett, 1999 cited in Car dwell Flanagan, 2004). Moreover, cognitive therapy sessions are taken over weeks, even months before results are noticed. An additional similarity is that not everyone who suffers from depression is helped by serotonin- found drugs and cognitive therapy (individual differences), suggesting that there are other causes for the disorder. In terms of biochemical factors, it is not clear why rough people become depressed when their serotonin or norepinephrine levels are low, whereas others with low levels of serotonin or norepinephrine remain depression free.Freud, 1917 (cited in Strachey, 1961) established a set ahead psychological account for depression. He described how, when a loved one is lost, there is a phase of mourning however for some, this phase never seems to quit they continue to exist in a state of melancholia (Freuds term for depression). Freud also believed that we unconsciously harbour negative feelings towards those we love and when we lose those we love, these nega tive feelings are turned on ourselves. In some cases, we continue a linguistic rule of self-abuse and self-blame according to this view, depression is anger turned against oneself. A further psychological account is life events (socio-cultural factors). Brown and Harris (1978) studied depressed women in London and found two situations which appeared to increase a persons helplessness to life events. First was the presence of long-term difficulties and secondly the existence of vulnerability factors. Dohrenwend, Shrout, Link, Martin and Skokol (1986) supported this by claiming that depressed patients characteristically experience higher level of negative life events in the year before a depressive episode.The psychological accounts pass the view that the disorder is caused by genetics and brain chemistry but by life events the environment. Similarly, the biological accounts reject the view that depression is caused by psychological factors instead it favours the idea that the diso rder is caused by a deficiency of neurotransmitters, neurocognitive impairment and genetics. Freud focused on the relationship between an individual and a loved one whereas the genetic explanation ignores the impact of the environment. The genetic explanation is an alternative biological account the view considers that certain individuals have certain genes which predisposes an individual to the disorder. Moreover the disorder can be inherited as a result of this we would anticipate to find that relatives (i.e. twins) have similar chances of ontogeny depression. Studies of twins have consistently found concord rates of nearly 46% for monozygotic twins compared to 20% for dizygotic twins (McGuffin, 1996) suggesting depression has a substantial inheritable component. Further evidence comes from adoption studies Wender in 1986 studied the biological relations of adopted people who had been hospitalised for serious depression and found there was a much higher incidence of depression in these relations than those of a non-depressed control group. The evidence for biological factors in the onset and progress of depression is strong but not as strong as that for schizophrenia as with schizophrenia, many of these biological factors (i.e. genes, biochemical factors) are not ultimate causes and may be only peripherally or indirectly involved.A fundamental difference between the biological accounts (biochemical and genetic factors) and the psychological accounts (Freuds theory and life events), is that the biological accounts are based on an internal origin of depression indoors an individual, both our genes and our biochemical levels are within us, whilst Freuds theory and life events are focused on external events from our bodies (i.e. the loss of a loved one). A similarity between the biological accounts and Freuds theory is both are fatalist, indicating that depression is down to factors out-of-door our control (genes, biochemistry, subconscious, thoughts). Som e would argue that depression is developed due to factors within our control (i.e. way we think), the approach Becks cognitive theory of depression takes. Additionally, Becks theory of depression is not determinist it explains how depression is down to our thinking and how we have the ability to change these thoughts, especially through successful cognitive therapy.A similarity between the biological accounts, Freuds and Becks theory is that they can all be argued to be reductionist. The biochemical and genetic explanation does not take into account significant psychological stressors (i.e. life events), making the theories over simplistic when considered as an explanation of depression reducing the explanation of depression down to biological factors alone. However, research has shown that our environment can affect factors such as our biochemistry (Wu et al., 1999) suggesting that other factors do in fact play a part in the development of depression. The fact that these explanatio ns do not consider both environmental and cognitive factors as reasons to the development of depression is a negative criticism. Both Freuds and Becks theory of depression reduce depression down to the loss of a loved one and the way we think, in addition both theories do not consider other possible factors such as genes. A further similarity is that, all accounts for depression do not hand over a complete explanation of the disorder, ignoring important factors which have evidently shown to square up the development of depression.It is perhaps best to consider an approach which incorporates both biological and psychology factors in explaining the development of depression. The diathesis-stress model indicates that there is a genetic vulnerability to the disorder but this triggered when an individual has been exposed to a trying life event. Both these factors are necessary for such disorder to develop, this is way not all children (twins) with depression develop the disorder and w hy the concordance rate for the disorder in monozygotic twins is nothing like 100%. To conclude, both biological and psychological accounts are related to some successful therapies. They are interdependent in so far as it is clear that some people are vulnerable to becoming depressed and for example, life events may trigger the onset of depression. Both explanations are determinist since they suggest that internal/external events cause depression differences between both the biological and psychological explanations can be found by looking at specific accounts, and for example, looking at the lack or bearing of research evidence and the implications.