Schizophrenia is a complex psychological disorder with a multifaceted aetiology that has been elusive in its definition. These two papers each seek to provide and explanation of schizophrenia, using distinct approaches. Perhaps the most prevalent challenge with Schizophrenia is the heterogeneity of its symptoms, both positive, such as delusions and hallucinations, as well as, negative symptoms, such as poverty of thought and speech, affective flattening, anhedonia, and cognitive symptoms, such as disorganized speech and behavior.
Both papers provide poor explanations for schizophrenia as a discrete disorder that encompasses the heterogeneity of the symptoms. Instead, we should analyse their contribution to our understanding of one particular …show more content…
(1996), who explore theory of mind as a psychological model for schizophrenia, and Freeman et al. (2002) who focuses providing an explanation for persecutory delusions, through applying cognitive models and incorporating the idea of threat beliefs. The strengths and weaknesses of the papers differ, as the structures of the two papers differ, with Frith et al. (1996) providing a model with testable hypothesis, allowing us to consider possible weaknesses regarding the internal and external validity of …show more content…
Theory of mind as a possible explanation for symptoms of schizophrenia has been tested multiple times (Harrington, Langdon, Siegert, & McClure, 2005;
Matching & Sample Size
Frith et al. (1996) provide a theory with a testable hypothesis, originally claiming a sample size of 55, while initially, this sample size seems appropriate to produce valid results that are generalizable, the further division of this group in accordance with a hierarchy of symptoms brings this into question. The hierarchical structure of the four groups is based on the organization of their symptoms, the first being behavioural signs, both positive and negative (n=12), paranoid symptoms (n=24), passivity phenomena (n=10), and those in remission (n=9). The problem with this is two-fold, for one thing, it drastically reduces sample size, but also, because the symptoms were hierarchical, someone with one group may display the symptoms of
Both papers provide poor explanations for schizophrenia as a discrete disorder that encompasses the heterogeneity of the symptoms. Instead, we should analyse their contribution to our understanding of one particular …show more content…
(1996), who explore theory of mind as a psychological model for schizophrenia, and Freeman et al. (2002) who focuses providing an explanation for persecutory delusions, through applying cognitive models and incorporating the idea of threat beliefs. The strengths and weaknesses of the papers differ, as the structures of the two papers differ, with Frith et al. (1996) providing a model with testable hypothesis, allowing us to consider possible weaknesses regarding the internal and external validity of …show more content…
Theory of mind as a possible explanation for symptoms of schizophrenia has been tested multiple times (Harrington, Langdon, Siegert, & McClure, 2005;
Matching & Sample Size
Frith et al. (1996) provide a theory with a testable hypothesis, originally claiming a sample size of 55, while initially, this sample size seems appropriate to produce valid results that are generalizable, the further division of this group in accordance with a hierarchy of symptoms brings this into question. The hierarchical structure of the four groups is based on the organization of their symptoms, the first being behavioural signs, both positive and negative (n=12), paranoid symptoms (n=24), passivity phenomena (n=10), and those in remission (n=9). The problem with this is two-fold, for one thing, it drastically reduces sample size, but also, because the symptoms were hierarchical, someone with one group may display the symptoms of