Evaluating Family Dysfunction as an Explanation of Schizophrenia
Supporting Evidence for Family Dysfunction as a Risk Factor for Schizophrenia
Read et al reviewed 46 studies of child abuse and SZ and found that 69% of adult women patients of SZ and
59% of male patients’ had a history of physical abuse in childhood.
This lends support to the idea that negative childhood experiences can cause a vulnerability to SZ. Hence
suggesting that family dysfunction is a risk factor for the onset of SZ.
However, it could be argued that this is weak supporting evidence because the data was collected
after the development of symptoms. It is possible that having SZ may have distorted the patients
recall of their childhood experiences, or that their memory of their childhood may not be accurate.
This would therefore criticise the validity of findings such as those by read et al.
Supporting Evidence for the Schizophrenogenic Mother
Mednick (1984) identified 207 children they considered to be at a high risk of developing schizophrenia
because of being reared in dysfunctional families. More specifically, mothers who were temperamental,
cold, rejecting & emotional aggressive. None of the PS or their mothers had schizophrenia at the start of the
study. The PS were compared to a control group of 107 people. Within 10 years, 17 of the high risk group
were diagnosed with schizophrenia, whereas only one in the control group was.
This shows that children who have a mother that is cod, rejecting & controlling are more likely to develop
schizophrenia, which indicates that this theory had predictive validity.
Supporting Evidence for Double Bind Theory
Berger (1965) found that schizophrenics reported a higher recall of double bind statements by their mothers
than non-schizophrenics.
This supports the idea that there is a link between family dysfunction, in particular the contradictory
behaviours of relatives, and schizophrenic symptoms.
Therefore, this increases the credibility of this explanation of schizophrenia.
However, Liem (1949) found no difference in communication patterns between families with and
without someone that had schizophrenia. In addition, Hall and Levin (1980) analysed data from
previous studies and found that the agreement between verbal & non-verbal communication was not
higher in families without schizophrenia than those with. These findings go against double bind
theory, which would predict a different pattern of communication amongst families with a family
member that has schizophrenia and that the pattern would be a discrepancy between verbal & non-
verbal communication.
Therefore, this reduces the credibility of this psychological explanation of schizophrenic.
Further Supporting Evidence from Adoption Studies
Tienari et al (1994) found in a study of adopted children that those that had a biological parent with
schizophrenia were more likely to develop schizophrenia than those without a biological parent with
schizophrenia. But this findings was only observed in situations when the adopted family was rated as
disturbed.
This means that the illness only manifested itself under appropriate environmental and biological conditions;
family dysfunction alone is not a valid explanation of schizophrenia.
Therefore, the environment plays a role in the development of schizophrenia, but an interactionist
perspective which combines both nature and nurture factors is likely to be accurate than one that only
focuses on the role of family dysfunction.
Supporting Evidence for Family Dysfunction as a Risk Factor for Schizophrenia
Read et al reviewed 46 studies of child abuse and SZ and found that 69% of adult women patients of SZ and
59% of male patients’ had a history of physical abuse in childhood.
This lends support to the idea that negative childhood experiences can cause a vulnerability to SZ. Hence
suggesting that family dysfunction is a risk factor for the onset of SZ.
However, it could be argued that this is weak supporting evidence because the data was collected
after the development of symptoms. It is possible that having SZ may have distorted the patients
recall of their childhood experiences, or that their memory of their childhood may not be accurate.
This would therefore criticise the validity of findings such as those by read et al.
Supporting Evidence for the Schizophrenogenic Mother
Mednick (1984) identified 207 children they considered to be at a high risk of developing schizophrenia
because of being reared in dysfunctional families. More specifically, mothers who were temperamental,
cold, rejecting & emotional aggressive. None of the PS or their mothers had schizophrenia at the start of the
study. The PS were compared to a control group of 107 people. Within 10 years, 17 of the high risk group
were diagnosed with schizophrenia, whereas only one in the control group was.
This shows that children who have a mother that is cod, rejecting & controlling are more likely to develop
schizophrenia, which indicates that this theory had predictive validity.
Supporting Evidence for Double Bind Theory
Berger (1965) found that schizophrenics reported a higher recall of double bind statements by their mothers
than non-schizophrenics.
This supports the idea that there is a link between family dysfunction, in particular the contradictory
behaviours of relatives, and schizophrenic symptoms.
Therefore, this increases the credibility of this explanation of schizophrenia.
However, Liem (1949) found no difference in communication patterns between families with and
without someone that had schizophrenia. In addition, Hall and Levin (1980) analysed data from
previous studies and found that the agreement between verbal & non-verbal communication was not
higher in families without schizophrenia than those with. These findings go against double bind
theory, which would predict a different pattern of communication amongst families with a family
member that has schizophrenia and that the pattern would be a discrepancy between verbal & non-
verbal communication.
Therefore, this reduces the credibility of this psychological explanation of schizophrenic.
Further Supporting Evidence from Adoption Studies
Tienari et al (1994) found in a study of adopted children that those that had a biological parent with
schizophrenia were more likely to develop schizophrenia than those without a biological parent with
schizophrenia. But this findings was only observed in situations when the adopted family was rated as
disturbed.
This means that the illness only manifested itself under appropriate environmental and biological conditions;
family dysfunction alone is not a valid explanation of schizophrenia.
Therefore, the environment plays a role in the development of schizophrenia, but an interactionist
perspective which combines both nature and nurture factors is likely to be accurate than one that only
focuses on the role of family dysfunction.
