Biological vs. Psychological Explanations of Depression

Introduction

This essay compares and contrasts the biological and psychological explanation of depression. Biological theories of depression are part of the medical model that treats depression as a physical illness or disorder caused by a defect, and one which can be treated (McLeod, 2018). The psychological model treats depression as a dysfunctional relationship between an individual and his environment that affects his emotional state (McLeod, 2015). The essay considers biological explanations first, then psychological explanations, then compares and contrasts the two approaches to depression. The essay primarily focuses on exploring and giving detailed information on differences and similarities between the psychological and biological explanation of depression. This similarities and differences are achieved by looking at genetic factors, neurotransmitter dysfunction, and Beck’s theory of depression, socio-cultural factors and Freud's theory (Lebowitz et al., 2013).

Biological explanations explain depression as a physical or neurological as a result of injury or genetic causes (Lee et al., 2016). Depressive disorders are the most commonly diagnosed psychopathological disorders, and they can be diagnosed as bipolar and unipolar. While social factors significantly contribute to depression, it is important to note that disorders of this kind can contain a biological basis (Fiske et al., 2009). Lee et al. (2016) explains that biological factors identify genetic factors as the etiology of the different levels of neurochemicals in individuals. Hammen (1997) suggested four varied explanations to endorse such belief: Depression syndromes include physical transformation, depression coming from the family, medication success and specific illness, drugs and injury could result in depression.

One key biological account for the explanation for depression is the role of the biochemicals that are involved. Depression is explained as caused by neurotransmitter deficiency; serotonin and norepinephrine (Fiske et al., 2009). Levels of norepinephrine in the brain have been found to be low quite frequently in patients with depression. In addition, research on post mortems has demonstrated that there is an increase in norepinephrine receptors density in suicide victims with depressed brains (Collins et al., 2011). On the other hand, another important link between depression and low levels of synaptic serotonin is strongly suggested by the fact that a reduced amount of a significant by-product of serotonin is found in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with depression.

This shows a lower serotonin level in the brain. Delgado (1994, cited in Collins et al., 2011) found that when patients were put on special diet which caused low levels of serotonin, and which assisted in lowering their tryptophan level, one of the serotonin precursors, depressive symptoms were reported by the patients, and these symptoms disappeared after sometime when they reverted to their normal diet. This demonstrated that low levels of serotonin were linked with symptoms of depression (Collins et al., 2011). It is important to note that this biological explanation of depression has widely received major support (Boysen & Vogel, 2008).

According to Patel et al (2007), psychological explanations for depression suggest that a person can trigger depression through how he or she remembers and interprets given situations. The empirical research and bulk of the theory is based on cognitive theory, behavioural theory, humanistic theory, psychodynamic theory (McLeod, 2015).

According to Beck's cognitive depression theory, a psychological account, depressed persons tend to think in a given manner since they have biased thoughts based on negative interpretation of the world; acquisition of negative schema during childhood plays a major role in this. Negative schemas of such kind are initiated whenever a person experiences a new situation that closely relates or similar to the initial conditions in which knowledge of schemas was acquired (McLeod, 2015). Negative schemas are equally subject to particular cognitive biases in terms of thinking. Cognitive biases and negative schemas maintain negative view of an individual, negative triad, the future and the world. Hopelessness theory (being pessimistic about the future) and theory of helplessness (inability to take control of bad experiences) are other important cognitive explanations (Schomerus et al., 2012).

Walter (2013) established an additional psychological account for depressed persons. He provided a description of how, when a person is bereaved, there is a mourning phase. However, for some people this kind of phase never seems coming to an end; there is a continuous existence of melancholia state among them. Walter also demonstrated that people unconsciously tend to harbor feelings of negativity towards the people they love and when they lose the people they love, these feelings of negativity are turned on themselves. In some scenarios, people continue self-blame and self-abuse pattern.

An additional psychological account is social-cultural factors. Suls & Wheeler (2013) researched about women living in depression and found out two situations that significantly contribute helplessness of a person's life events. They noted that the existence of long-term hardship and presence of vulnerable factors played a significant role in women who lived a life of depression. This research was further supported by claims that depressed persons characteristically encounter great levels of negative situations in the year prior to an episode of depression.

Cognitive-behavioural and learning theories propose that depression is a reaction to the environment (McLeod, 2015). This makes depression a mental health problem with an external cause that can be identified, such as bereavement, a loss of a job or property (Boysen & Vogel, 2008). However, this theoretical approach has its limitations, in that it does not explain depression that is not caused by an identifiable external source, where nothing bad has happened, and does not account for depression caused by negative thoughts, or even depression originating from within the individual (McLeod, 2015).

Psychodynamic theory explains depression as caused by negative early childhood experiences that could be traumatic, and the attendant attachment problems, or internalization of loss (McLeod, 2015). This explanation locates the cause of depression inside the individual, in his thoughts and as a victim of negative past experiences (Boysen & Vogel, 2008). One disadvantage of psychodynamic theory is that its emphasis on the unconscious makes it difficult for mental health practitioners to diagnose the cause of depression.

A disparity exists in both explanations in terms of treatment. In biochemical account, the symptoms are treated and not the final cause with approximately 65 per cent effectiveness; on the other hand, the cognitive accounts are linked with successful therapies meant for depression. According to Reynolds et al (2010) approximately 80 per cent of adults benefitted more from cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) instead of drug therapy. In addition, CBT had a lower rate of relapse, supporting the view that depression could be psychological. Renolds et al (2010) found out that negative events resulted in changes in serotonin level and norepinephrine, thereby providing a link between eternal events and biochemical changes that can cause depression.

Despite these wide disparities in treatment, the effects show the similarity in treatment. It often takes a couple of weeks before the effect of the drug can be noticed on depression regardless of the fact that serotonin levels are raised immediately by antidepressants; neurotransmitters low level thus cannot be a direct explanation for depression ( Charles & Cartensen, 2010). Also, sessions of cognitive therapy are often taken for quite a long period before the results are noticed. Another similarity is that every person who undergoes depression is assisted by cognitive therapy and serotonin-based drugs, showing that the existence of other causes of the disorder. In biological factors, it is not coherent why some individuals normally suffer depression when there is a decrease in their levels of serotonin, whilst other people with low serotonin levels do not suffer depression (Walter, 2013).

Psychological explanations provide an alternative view to the biological explanations. Research on twins has persistently found rates of concordance can be approximately 46 per cent for monozygotic twins and 20 per cent for dizygotic twins. This figure suggests that depression has a significant component of inheritance. Additional evidence is gotten from studies of adoption. Wender (1986, cited in Rusch et al., 2009) found that there was a greater depression incidence in these relations when compared to those of non-depressed control individuals. The biological factor's evidence is the progress and onset of depression. Notably, the evidence for schizophrenia is much stronger than that of biological factors. In schizophrenia, many of these biological factors are not final causes and can be indirectly or peripherally involved (Rusch et al., 2009).

An Important difference between psychological account (life events and Freud's theory) and biological account (genetically and biochemical factors), is that biological accounts rely on internal depression origin within a person, both biochemical levels and genes are within individuals, whereas life events and Freud's theory are more focused on external events coming from bodies of individuals, for instance, the loss of loved ones (McLeod, 2015). A similarity that exists between Freud's theory and the biological account is the fact that both are determinist, denoting that depression is determined by factors that cannot be controlled by people (thoughts, biochemistry, and genes, subconscious). Depression can be triggered by factors within our control such as the way in which people think. However, some of the depression might be triggered by both internal or biological and cognitive factors, or by external events (Teachman et al., 2006)

A similarity between the two biological accounts, Beck and Freud's theory is the fact that they can be both argued to be reductionist. The genetical and biochemical explanation does not give regard to substantial psychological stressors, making the theories to be over-simplistic when regarded as depression explanation; diminishing the depression explanation down to biochemical factors. Studies have however demonstrated that factors such as biochemistry can be affected by the environment and this suggests that other factors do play any role in depression development (Lebowitz et al., 2014). These explanations do not give regard to both cognitive and environmental factors as the reasons for depression development and therefore are considered be negative criticism. Beck's and Freud's theory of depression diminish depression to be as a result of the way people think and loss of loved ones, moreover, both theories fails to consider other possible factors that may possibly be the cause of depression such as genes. An additional similarity is that all depression accounts fail to provide a satisfactory explanation of the depression, neglecting essential factors which have potentially demonstrated to control depression development (Fiske et al., 2009).

Both biological and psychological explanation of major depression can be linked and associated interchangeably as a mechanism that can be used to predict depression on individuals. A lot of research that has denoted gene-cognitive co-relations has supported this and vulnerability interplay that leaves individuals with specific phenotypes of genes vulnerable to styles of negative attribution that triggers depression. This connection brings both biological and psychological explanation when comparing their aetiology explanations of depression due to specific negative events. However, it should be noted that both explanations have major variances that should be highlighted.

First, vulnerabilities of biological genetic are natural happenings that cannot be controlled or changed (Walter, 2013) .This explains why some drugs such as SSRIs are still considered to be ineffective when used to treat major depression. Research on the psychological or cognitive explanation of depression; on the other hand, suggest specific cognitive dysfunction can be controlled via beliefs of manipulation, environmental cues and attitude. Lee et al (2016) for instance denoted that children who experience emotional abuse tend to exhibit a significant increase in depression. Therefore getting rid of such behaviour from their surrounding can diminish the dysfunctional attitude development that results in psychological vulnerabilities to depression (Patel et al., 2007)

Conclusion

Psychological explanations of depression, and biological explanations can complement each other. At times patients receiving treatment for depression can benefit from both pharmacological and therapeutic interventions. It appears that it is important that interventions address environmental, thought processes, and biological issues. The fact that experiences and environmental variation can alter individual cognition in a negative or positive way suggests that therapeutic interventions can be effective. Both psychological and biological accounts are linked to certain successful therapies. Both explanations are determinist because they demonstrate that external and internal events cause depression.

Reference

Boysen, G. A., & Vogel, D. L. (2008). Education and mental health stigma: The effects of attribution, biased assimilation, and attitude polarization. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(5): 447-470.

Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2010). Social and emotional aging. Annual review of psychology, 61: 383-409.

Collins, P. Y., Patel, V., Joestl, S. S., March, D., Insel, T. R., Daar, A. S.,et al. (2011). Grand challenges in global mental health. Nature, 475(7354): 27.

Fiske, A., Wetherell, J. L., & Gatz, M. (2009). Depression in older adults. Annual review of clinical psychology, 5: 363-389.

Kim, S., Thibodeau, R., & Jorgensen, R. S. (2011). Shame, guilt, and depressive symptoms: a meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 137(1): 68.

Lebowitz, M. S., Ahn, W. K., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2013). Fixable or fate? Perceptions of the biology of depression. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 81(3): 518.

Lebowitz, M. S., & Ahn, W. K. (2014). Effects of biological explanations for mental disorders on clinicians’ empathy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(50): 17786-17790.

Lee, A. A., Farrell, N. R., McKibbin, C. L., & Deacon, B. J. (2016). Comparing treatment relevant etiological explanations for depression and social anxiety: Effects on self-stigmatizing attitudes. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 35(7): 571- 588.

Patel, V., Flisher, A. J., Hetrick, S., & McGorry, P. (2007). Mental health of young people: a global public-health challenge. the Lancet, 369(9569): 1302-1313.

Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Branscombe, N. R., Mavor, K. I., Bizumic, B., & Subašić, E. (2010). Interactionism in personality and social psychology: An integrated approach to understanding the mind and behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 24(5): 458-482.

Rusch, L. C., Kanter, J. W., & Brondino, M. J. (2009). A comparison of contextual and biomedical models of stigma reduction for depression with a nonclinical undergraduate sample. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 197(2): 104- 110.

Schomerus, G., Matschinger, H., & Angermeyer, M. C. (2014). Causal beliefs of the public and social acceptance of persons with mental illness: a comparative analysis of schizophrenia, depression and alcohol dependence. Psychological medicine, 44(2): 303-314.

Schomerus, G., Schwahn, C., Holzinger, A., Corrigan, P. W., Grabe, H. J., Carta, M. G., & Angermeyer, M. C. (2012). Evolution of public attitudes about mental illness: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 125(6): 440-452.

Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. Springer Science & Business Media.

Teachman, B. A., Wilson, J. G., & Komarovskaya, I. (2006). Implicit and explicit stigma of mental illness in diagnosed and healthy samples. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(1): 75-95.

Walter, H. (2013). The third wave of biological psychiatry. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 582.