Social Causation Theory and Social Selection Theory - Essay Example

Running Head: Compare and Contrast the social causation theory with the social selection theory of the origins of mental illness Compare and Contrast the social causation theory with the social selection theory of the origins of mental illness Authors Name Institution Name It is known that mental illness is over represented in the lower classes. What is less clear, are whether lower social statuses serves as cause or consequence of mental illness One of the most reliable findings in psychiatric epidemiology has been the contrary relation between socioeconomic status and pervasiveness of a variety of types of disorders (Dohrenwend, 1990). Faris and Dunham were among the first to study that psychiatric status was affected by geographic distribution. They noted that the sub population of individuals requiring hospitalization for a psychiatric condition, specifically those diagnosed as schizophrenic, tended to be concentrated in the more densely populated and socially disorganized central city. They considered both a social causation and a social selection hypothesis, and concluded that this concentration of schizophrenic patients was caused by the social conditions in the central city and did not result from the most disturbed psychiatric sub population drifting into those areas. In a more contemporary study, Jaco also found a higher incidence of mental disorder in urban, as opposed to rural areas; although he did observe extremely divergent rates between the two highly industrialized communities within the overall area of study (FARIS, R. E. L. and H. W. DUNHAM. 1939). However, Social causation theory and social selection theory have been used to explicate why low socioeconomic status (SES) is linked with risk for mental disorders (Johnson, Cohen, Dohrenwend, Link, and Brook, 1999). Both of these theories were examined using data from a community-based longitudinal study (Johnson et al., 1999). Low family SES was linked with children anxiety, depressive, upsetting, and behavior disorders even after children IQ and parental psycho pathologies were controlled. Diverse methods linked with the two theories varied in significance, depending on the particular mental disorder. Eating disorders are linked with economic wealth, a rare instance of psycho pathology that might excessively influence the parenting of more economically secure individuals. Studies signify compound and prevailing links between SES and mental illness. Though, in current years research interest in the role of economic hardship in psychiatric disorders has been declining (Dohrenwend, 1990). Given the probable negative effect on the parenting of already compromise caregivers, this is an adverse turn of events. As research on economic drawback and poverty concerning parenting and child development has augmented, the probable interceding or modest roles of parental psycho pathology have not been stressed. Research in the "causation" practice argues that social states in the lower stratum of society cause mental illness. Whereas, study in the "selection" tradition asserts that the mentally ill "select" themselves into the lower class as a result of impair social mobility. This tension has annoyed social scientists for over fifty years, and its declaration bears allegations for the delivery of public health services: to whom must we aim services and when Historically, these two alternatives have been hard to reform because random assignment of people to social class is barely a prospect and social scientists have, for the majority part, been wedged with cross-sectional social surveys. But it is probable to try to estimate causation effects using correlation data. One approach has been to widen statistical models to control for selection effects. These models control for disregarded population heterogeneity. But these models need strong suppositions, and controlling for unmeasured features often fails to reveal what those factors might be. Another approach has been to use racial group designs or migration studies to try to tease separately causation from selection processes and these studies have shed light on causal mechanisms (Dohrenwend et al. 1990). Studies show how one can effort to disentangle social-selection effects from social-causation effects in the composite association between psychiatric disorders and educational accomplishment (Miech, Caspi, Moffitt, Wright, and Silva, 1999). In terms of life-course development, research focuses on the conversion to young adulthood, as the descending slide in the class structure instigates that adolescents leave school. Our measure of social inequality centers on disparities in educational attainment in young adulthood as this is a key constituent of consequent social class. Precisely, Social causation theory suggests that high rates of mental illness amongst those of lower social class are because of a greater exposure to environmental and social stress. This comprises living in dearth and deprivation; mainly in disintegrate societies characterized by social segregation, high offense and fragmented communiqu. In these societies, person and community managing resources are both restricted and persistently tested. A blend of outer stressors with internal deflation and lack of personal control are offered to account for heaved levels of madness and suffering in stipulations of poverty. Modern analysts have paid considerable attention to relative insufficiency and a gap between normative aspiration and the limited avenues for apprehending these desires (Dohrenwend etal. 1998). Whereas, Social selection theory suggests that social class is influenced by mental disorder. Genetic and/or early ecological factors might be concerned in explaining the involvement between low socioeconomic situation and high rates of mental illness, either by enhanced susceptibility at times of stress or by simple bio-determinism. It is significant to note, then, that selection models do not focus simply on genetic determination. A numeral of lines of investigation has been practiced so as to explain the social class gradient in mental health, together with experiences of family drawbacks in childhood, detailed social-psychological as well as biological factors, and generalized exposure obtained though exposure to pervasive adversity. Elucidations taking from these broader categories have integrated class-based differences in fetal damage, inherent differences, stress, limited or rigid formations of social reality and differences in coping methods all of which have been associated to 'lower social class' position. There has been a continuing debate concerning the social causation and social selection explanations. Though there have been several recent propositions that process of social selection and causation diverge according to analytical type - for instance, more influential proof for social selection concerning 'mental illness' and for social causation concerning dejection and anxiety in common terms there has been no ultimate mediation that one position is more convincing than the other. This is mainly the case concerning the uncertainties about which variables (if any) are implicated in supposed individual susceptibility. Though at times the selection hypothesis has been generally associated to genetic theories in psychiatry, rationally social selection could take place as a consequence of early or cumulative psycho social variables causing mental ill-health, which then concludes in individuals being communally disabled or hopeless. Therefore, a neat dichotomy cannot be tacit, with the social selection hypothesis merely equaling a hereditary position and the social causation hypothesis and ecological or social stress position. This pretense another problem in the debate, which is that susceptibility, entails a correlation across time: a 'diachronic relationship'. By distinguishing, several social causation models underline points in time hardship or trauma: a 'synchronic relationship'. Rationally, of course, both diachronic and synchronic features might have a causal relevance hence the general consensus concerning stress vulnerability. Even within this comprehensive logic, it still vestiges problematical to desegregate the relative weighting or salience of diverse current and past variables. A popular strategy is to argue that 'mental illness' afflicts all classes equally but those at the top of the economic pyramid dribble down to the bottom as a result of their illness. This is the 'social casuation' theory. Of course, there are social and economic consequences to being particularly distressed, alienated or disoriented. There are additional consequences to having one's response to adversity explicated in terms of having a 'mental illness'. Though, to use the consequences of one's distress to dismiss or lessen the social causes of the distress is systematically nonsensical and obstructive. Social causation of disease has numerous dimensions. The complications are simply beginning to be explored. The victim holding responsible ideology, though, restrains that understanding and alternates instead an idealistic behavioral model. It both disregards what is known concerning human behavior and reduces the significance of support concerning the environmental stabbing on health. It initiates people to be individually accountable at a time while they are becoming less competent as individuals of controlling their health surroundings. Although environmental dangers are frequently renowned, the inference is that little can be done concerning an ineluctable, contemporary, technical, and industrialized society. Way of living and ecological factors is thrown together to converse that individuals are the main agents in shaping or amending the effects of their environment. As of the scarcity of support to hold that the 'social casuation' concept, psychiatry has fallen back on weaker disparities of the similar theme. 'Social selection' theory (Eaton 1980) recommended that though 'mental illness' have not in fact wafted downwards themselves, their indigent state of affairs are still a result, to a certain extent than a cause, of their 'illness', as they are of a lower social status than their parents, or, weaker still, as they have not climbed up the pyramid as far as they must be have-the 'social residue' theory. Study tested the 'social casuation' theory by examining whether 'class V patients had gisted to the slums in the track of their lives' and whether 'schizophrenics' were communally downward mobile. No proof of such 'social drift' was found. The study also redundant the weaker social selection theory as above ninety percent of the 'schizophrenics' was in the similar social class as their parents somewhat than a lower class as envisaged (Hollingshead and Redlich 1958). A study reported capacity of class and mental disorder taken ten years apart and found 'that socioeconomic status was more probable to have causal precedence over psychiatric disorder than the reverse' (Lee 1976). This longitudinal approach was frequent in Britain and Scotland, using numerous points in time. The results favor a social causation understanding (Wheaton 1978). Afar foreseeing who becomes 'mentally ill' in the first place, low 'social class of derivation, which 'cannot be sources by schizophrenia', also envisages negative results amid people with a severe psychosis (Samele et al. 2001). Likewise, the association between urban life and schizophrenia has been shown not to be a result of social drift or social residues (Dauncey et al. 1993), but to a certain extent a result of growing up in the city. Current reviewers mention the following causal factors: stressful life events, social segregation, overcrowding, over inspiration, crime levels, poverty and contamination (Sharpley et al. 2001). Moreover, to have close evaluation of both the theories, three experiential tests were used to observe the influences of selection and causation. Firstly, the involvement between mental disorders at age fifteen and family SES surroundings. Subsequently, the extent to which these mental disorders weakened social mobility by appraised their influence on succeeding educational attainment, using models that restricted traditional status accomplishment controls such as IQ, family SES background, and gender. Third, the degree to which increases in mental disorder between ages 15 and 21 were linked with early adulthood SES, as indexed by edifying attainment at age 21. No test by itself gives enough information to differentiate among the three understandings of selection, causation, and joint effects, but, together, they lead to discriminating patterns of anticipated results. A selection effect would propose that psychiatric disorders are linked to educational achievement because susceptible persons select themselves out of education. Evidence for elite selection effects would be designated by a pattern in which mental disorder at age 15 weakened educational attainment, but in which mental disorder in adolescence and in adulthood was uninfluenced by socioeconomic surroundings. Evidence for elite causation effects would be designated by a pattern in which mental disorder in adolescence and in adulthood was inclined by socioeconomic conditions but in which mental disorder did not weaken subsequent educational attainment. Of course, it is also probable that there are joint or mutually supporting effects. This would be signified by a pattern of three considerable findings: mental disorders in adolescence were inclined by SES of origin; mental disorders impaired status realization; and mental disorders in adulthood were in addition inclined by SES of early adulthood. The results show that diverse disorders are linked to educational accomplishment for diverse reasons. Studies show social causation results with regard to anxiety disorders. Adolescents who developed in deprived SES families were more concerned. However, mental disorders in adolescence did not influence their ensuing educational attainment. But losing out in formal education did amplify the risk of anxiety disorders in adulthood, yet after controlling for primary levels of anxiety in adolescence. It seems that, the connection between anxiety disorders and social class does not occur as anxious adolescents select themselves into the lower stratum; rather, there should be something concerning the conditions of life in the lower stratum, whether in adolescence or in young adulthood, that makes people concerned. The picture is complex with regard to disruptive disorders. First, the consequences show that parental social class is associated with conduct disorder. Second, the consequences show that disruptive disorders weaken educational attainment. Educational accomplishment broke down into three separate evolutions. The first evolution asks whether psychiatric disorders envisaged failure to earn a school certificate degree, which is taken by youth by age sixteen and which establish promotion in secondary school. The results show that conduct disorder envisaged failure at this transition. The second transition asks whether psychiatric disorders predicted failure to earn a sixth form certificate, the equivalent of O-levels in England. The outcomes show that conduct disorder predicted failure at this transition as well. The third transition asks whether psychiatric disorders envisaged failure to enter universities. Conduct disorder did not considerably predict failure at this transition. This is as the selection effects were so strong at earlier transitions that there were few brutally disturbed adolescents left to even make this alteration. Regardless of strong selection effects, the results divulge that, even after controlling for earlier psychiatric morbidity, trailing out in formal education augmented the risk of further antisocial behavior. Certainly, with regard to antisocial disorders, selection and causation are equally supportive dynamics. People with conduct disorder are selectively probable to experience descending drift, and once they lose out on educational opportunities they are ever more likely to persist engaging in antisocial behavior. Thus, neither causation nor selection provided support. Results propose that the SES/mental illness association found in several studies of adults (Kessler et al., 1995) might be specific to adulthood, dazzling the consequences of adult-specific processes, such as divorce or becomingly fascinated in lower-status jobs that place lower-SES adults at improved risk of depression. Obviously, with regard to the involvement between SES and depression, a more comprehensive treatment might benefit from a life-course analysis that scrutinizes age-specific mechanisms involving social conditions and mental disorders (Elder, George, and Shanahan, 1996; Miech and Shanahan, 2000). In terms of theory, this set of findings highlights the requirement for disorder specific explanations of the relations linking social status and mental illness. Simply put: one can no longer speak concerning psychiatric disorders and social class. Rather, one should speak more particularly about anxiety and social class, conduct disorder and social class, and so forth, because diverse psychiatric disorders are linked to social status for diverse reasons and through different mechanisms (Avshalom Caspi, Lea Pulkkinen; 2002). Thus, research on social status and mental health has much to gain by incorporating measures of specific mental illness into study designs moderately than relying on compilation measures of psychological distress. Numerous researchers continue to use such compilation measures as these are quick and easy to use in large samples, but it looks like the very compilation nature of these measures is probable to generate mis-specifications in models of the relation linking social status and mental illness as measures of psychological distress alone cannot distinguish between different disorders (Krueger et al., 1998). Additionally, with a few prominent exceptions, most previous studies of the relation linking social status and psychiatric disorders have relied on measures of anguish that contain a combination of physical and psychological symptoms to a certain extent than any specific clinical pattern. The problem with such lack of specificity is that (a) it stymies efforts to precede social-psychological theory and (b) it stymies efforts to obtain recommendations for involvement and management. Likewise, social analysts and medical sociologists are improbable to make much progress in considerate how low socioeconomic status affects mental health until they take up well-conceived measurement practices. But the more common point from this research is that it is probable to recognize how environmental experiences influence developmental pathways by focusing on intra-individual change and by study people throughout those developmental periods while they make decisive social selections. References: Dohrenwend, B. P. (1990). Socioeconomic status (SES) and psychiatric disorders: Are the issues still compelling Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 25, 41-47. Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Dohrenwend, B. P., Link, B. G., and Brook, J. (1999). A longitudinal investigation of social causation and social selection processes involved in the association between socioeconomic status and psychiatric disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 490-499. Miech, R. A., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Wright, B. R. E., and Silva, P. A. (1999). Low socioeconomic status and mental disorders: a longitudinal study of selection and causation during young adulthood. Journal of Sociology, 104, 1096-131. Dohrenwend, B. P. (1998). Introduction. In B. P. Dohrenwend (Ed.), Adversity, stress, and psychopathology (pp. 3-8). New York: Oxford University Press. FARIS, R. E. L. and H. W. DUNHAM. Mental Disorders in Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939. Eaton, W. (1980). A formal theory of selection for schizophrenia. American Journal of Sociology86:149-58. Lee, R. (1976). The causal priority between socio-economic status and psychiatric disorder. International Journal of Social Psychiatry22:1-8. Wheaton, B. (1978). The sociogenesis of psychological disorder. American Sociological Review43:383-403. Samele, C. et al. (2001). Does socio-economic status predict course and outcome in patients with psychosis Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology36: 573-81. Dauncey, K. et al. (1993). Schizophrenia in Nottingham. British Journal of Psychiatry 163:613-19. Sharpley, M. et al. (2001). Understanding the excess of psychosis among the African-Caribbean population in England. British Journal of Psychiatry 178(suppl.40):s60-s68. Kessler, R. C., Foster, C. L., Saunders, W. B., and Stang, P. E. (1995). Consequences of psychiatric disorders, I: Educational attainment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1026-32. Elder, G. H., Jr., George, L. K., and Shanahan, M. J. (1996). Psychosocial stress over the life course. In H. B. Kaplan (ed.), Psychosocial stress: Perspectives on structure, theory, life-course, and methods. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc, 247-92. Miech, R. A., and Shanahan, M. J. (2000). Socioeconomic status and depression over the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 162-76. Avshalom Caspi, Lea Pulkkinen; Paths to Successful Development: Personality in the Life Course Cambridge University Press, 2002 Read More