The Concept of Vulnerability in Psychopathology - Term Paper Example

? A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Vulnerability in Psychopathology of Even though the concept of ‘vulnerability’in psychopathology is not a new one, there is still no general description of what comprises ‘vulnerability’. To the average person, vulnerability is familiar; individuals are vulnerable in the sense that they are prone to being injured or harmed. Psychological disciplines insightfully expand this description to include emotional trauma and the development of psychopathology (Pollock, 2001, 1172). However, as perceptively interesting as the idea of vulnerability has been, hardly any decisive or exact definitions of the concept are provided in scientific discourses. Apparently, straightforward and plain definitions of vulnerability are numerous. Nevertheless, from a scientific perspective, replacing one weakly defined concept with another is an unacceptable way of understanding the features and intricacy of the concept of vulnerability (Carson, 2011, 145). In view of this, this essay provides a critical analysis of the concept of vulnerability in psychopathology. The concept of vulnerability in psychopathology is originally derived from the schizophrenia literature. Zubin and Spring (1977) were among the first scholars to clearly explain vulnerability. They explained that scientific development on the causes of schizophrenia was mostly unclear, and, consequently, researchers were usually disappointed with the sufficiency of the primary conceptual models of schizophrenia research (as cited in Ingram & Price, 2010, 49-50). In order to mitigate this issue, they hypothesized that vulnerability may be distinguished as the common trait that encompasses all of the different conceptual models of schizophrenia; thus, even though each of the primary empirical frameworks highlighted various perspectives of schizophrenia, all agree to the likelihood that several vulnerability aspects may increase the susceptibility of an individual to schizophrenia, although these possible vulnerabilities could also be quite dissimilar (Hankin & Abela, 2005, 40). Taking into account these different empirical frameworks, Zubin and Spring (1977) suggested that vulnerability can comprise both acquired or inborn/genetic components. Nevertheless, schizophrenia researchers are not the only scholars who have realized the possible value of the concept of vulnerability in psychopathology. For example, developmental psychopathologists have given much emphasis on the components that could either protect or expose children from psychological disorders like interpersonal difficulties, learning disabilities, and behavioral problems (Radke-Yarrow & Brown, 2009, 583). Likewise, psychopathy, bipolar disorder, and alcohol dependence characterize psychopathological conditions that have been the interest of vulnerability research (Sookman, Pinard, & Beck, 2001, 110). Even though inclusive definitions of vulnerability are uncommon, a conceptual understanding of this concept in psychopathology is still possible by analyzing its fundamental features. Vulnerability corresponds to an endogenous factor. This is probably most evidently discussed in genetic models of vulnerability, but it is similarly applicable to psychological models. Specifically, whether acquired or inborn, the vulnerability exists within the individual. This feature can be differentiated with other levels of analysis that may place emphasis on external or environmental forces that trigger a dysfunction, or possibly an emphasis on interpersonal approaches that could result in apathetic interactions (Hankin & Abela, 2005, 34-35). It is essential to remember that even though these external factors are evidently crucial, the focal point of vulnerability mechanisms exists within the individual. Similar to the assumption that vulnerability is an endogenous factor, several researchers have claimed that vulnerability is not simply or clearly discernible and can hence be viewed as a latent factor. This form of latency is mostly present in studies that depend on some form of difficult or traumatic episode makes the vulnerability factor discernible (Hankin & Abela, 2005, 35). Therefore, the effort to detect vulnerability factors is an effort to detect to determinants of the disorder without the disorder’s symptoms, a pragmatic approach adopting a conceptual view that vulnerability exists but not readily discernible. Furthermore, researchers often regard vulnerability as a permanent trait. Zubin and Spring (1977) provided the most precise discussion of the trait-like feature of vulnerability: “We regard [vulnerability] as a relatively permanent, enduring trait” (as cited in Ingram & Price, 2010, 6). They were quite certain that vulnerability denotes mechanisms that persist over time. Yet, permanence does not have to be based on genetic components. Reference to schizophrenia research is again illuminating. Investigators have proposed that prenatal distress or anxiety may result in vulnerability to schizophrenic episodes. For instance, severe starvation and maternal infection have been associated with an increase in the prevalence of schizophrenia (Lereya & Wolke, 2012). Postnatal variables have also been associated (Ingram & Price, 2010, 6-7), which may come into contact with genetic deficits to make the vulnerability stronger or more stable. Even though vulnerability is supported by numerous scholars, especially those engaged in genetics, to be stable and permanent, this does not have to be the case. This is particularly factual when vulnerability research is focused on the psychological domain instead of genetic factors. Models of genetic vulnerability provide hardly any possibilities for changing vulnerability features (Hong & Paunonen, 2011, 532). On the contrary, several psychological models depend on frameworks of impaired learning as the origin or source of vulnerability. These arguments imply that actual levels of vulnerability may vary due to new learning processes that affect the specific vulnerability component. Hollon and colleagues (2006 as cited in Ingram & Price, 2010, 7), for instance, have summed up findings demonstrating that, in comparison to pharmacotherapy for psychological disorders, cognitive therapy is more successful in inhibiting recurrence and relapse, most probably because the core vulnerability has been somehow changed. Apparently, from the perspective of psychology, vulnerability may lessen with specific treatment or counteractive processes, or, otherwise, it may intensify over time. In conclusion, the concept of vulnerability in psychopathology has undoubtedly been a struggle between genetic scholars and psychological researchers. This is the underlying explanation for the absence of a specific, inclusive conceptual definition of vulnerability. Nevertheless, new approaches to conceptualizing vulnerability in psychopathology have surfaced, together with methodological models employed to analyze the mechanisms identified in these approaches. Moreover, a broad array of psychologically, environmentally, and genetically determined vulnerability mechanisms have been discovered to be associated with the emergence of psychopathology. While several vulnerability components have been associated with certain forms of psychopathology, some vulnerability components have been associated with multiple forms of disorder, such as learning disabilities and behavioral problems. Lastly, current vulnerability research indicates several fundamental features that distinguish the concept of vulnerability: permanence or stability, and being endogenous and latent. Understanding these features of vulnerability is important in identifying the nature of individual vulnerability to psychopathology, such as schizophrenia. References Carson, S. (2011). Creativity and Psychopathology: A Shared Vulnerability Model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(3), 144+ Hankin, B. & Abela, J. (2005). Development of Psychopathology: A Vulnerability-Stress Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hong, R. & Paunonen, S. (2011). Personality Vulnerabilities to Psychopathology: Relations between Trait Structure and Affective-Cognitive Processes. Journal of Personality, 79(3), 527-562. Ingram, R. & Price, J. (2010). Vulnerability to Psychopathology, Second Edition: Risk Across the Lifespan. New York: Guilford Press. Lereya, S. & Wolke, D. (2012). Prenatal family adversity and maternal mental health and vulnerability to peer victimization at school. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 10(11), 1+ Pollock, G.H. (2001). Vulnerability to Psychopathology: A Biosocial Model. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(7), 1172-1173. Radke-Yarrow, M. & Brown, E. (2009). Resilience and vulnerability in children of multiple-risk families. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 581-592. Sookman, D., Pinard, G., & Beck, A.T. (2001). Vulnerability Schemas in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 15(2), 109+ Zubin, J. & Spring, B. (1977). Vulnerability: A new view of schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(2), 103-126. Read More