Theory construction in the psychopathology domain: A multiphase approach

Abstract

Our understanding of mental disorders is facilitated by our theoretical explanations of them. At present, these explanations are practically and theoretically insufficient; possessing widespread conceptual issues (e.g., lack of richness and specificity) and producing therapeutic treatments that lack effectiveness. In our view, one reason for such issues is that we are currently without a systematic method for the construction of these explanations. We therefore present to the reader the Phenomena Detection Method for Theory Construction (PDM-TC), a preliminary systematic framework for the construction of psychopathological explanation comprising three phases: (a) selecting an appropriate explanatory target, (b) developing a rich compositional description, and (c) developing a quality etiological explanation. Using theories of eating disorders as a sustained example, we demonstrate how current explanations of psychopathology execute the tasks associated with each of these phases insufficiently and how the conceptual issues they evidence can be ameliorated by the PDM-TC framework.

The Explanation of Eating Disorders: A Critical Analysis

“…At present, we acknowledge that no fully fledged method is available. However, we have previously presented the Phenomena Detection Method for Theory Construction ( PDM-TC ), which represents a first attempt to create a systematic framework for building psychopathological explanations (Hawkins-Elder & Ward, 2019). 4 We hope that this preliminary framework will provide a tool that researchers may begin to use for constructing ED models and integrating them into overarching explanations of ED phenomena.…”

“…These may include ED signs and symptoms, such as core behaviours (e.g., binge eating, purging, and dietary restriction), beliefs and attitudes (e.g., glorification of thinness, and fear of weight gain), or other relevant features (e.g., poor emotion regulation). They may also be ‘complexes’ of such signs and symptoms which represent reliable patterns of ED behaviour, cognition, and emotion (e.g., the B-P cycle; Hawkins-Elder & Ward, 2019; Nielsen & Ward, 2020). Such phenomena are more empirically valid and less heterogeneous than both DSM syndromes and transdiagnostic classes, as they contain a more restricted set of features.…”

Phenomena complexes as targets of explanation in psychopathology: The relational analysis of phenomena approach

“…This is where individuals with the same diagnoses often have differing patterns of symptoms with differing levels of severity (i.e., symptomatic heterogeneity), suggesting that the diagnostic label in question may be capturing more than one underlying causal process (i.e., etiological heterogeneity). This concern is well evidenced; prototypical disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), eating disorders, schizophrenia, and depression have all been shown to capture large and heterogenous populations (Contractor et al, 2017; Dickinson et al, 2018; Galatzer-Levy & Bryant, 2013; Hawkins-Elder & Ward, 2020; Monroe & Anderson, 2015). Ultimately this suggests that there are good reasons to doubt the etiopathological validity of the DSM’s diagnostic constructs—that is, that they pick out similarly constituted entities with common causal processes/structures.…”

“…Prototypical examples of ideal PCs already exist, such as the binge–purge cycle or self-starvation spiral in eating disorders (Hawkins-Elder & Ward, 2020), the experiential avoidance cycle in OCD, or escalation cycles in the families of children with conduct problems. Note that these are ideal examples in that they are all highly circular structures, metaphorically acting as “engines of distress.” To restate, PCs do not always have to feature this circular organization.…”

Philosophy of science and the formalization of psychological theory

“…More and more influential researchers are calling for increased attention to theory in psychology, and papers advocating theory development have found their way into mainstream journals (e.g., Fiedler, 2017; Muthukrishna & Henrich, 2019; Smaldino, 2019). Also, Theory & Psychology continues to publish novel and important contributions to this debate (e.g., Hawkins-Elder & Ward, 2020; Klein, 2014; McGann & Speelman, 2020; Trafimow & Earp, 2016).…”