Theoretical Models and Brain-Based Mechanisms Underlying Schizophrenia

UPI Study › Courses › Abnormal Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 19.2 Free with a free account

Theoretical Models and Brain-Based Mechanisms Underlying Schizophrenia

Abnormal Psychology · Chapter 19: Psychotic Disorders and Disruptions to RealitySection 19.2 · lesson 71 of 9717 min · free with a free account

← Schizophrenia, Core Symptoms, Clinical Subtypes, and Active vs. Deficit SymptomsNext lesson: The Progression of Schizophrenia, Onset, Genetic Susceptibility, and Environmental Risk →

Earn 3 college credits for Abnormal PsychologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 180 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Abnormal Psychology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Models and mechanisms - and the difference between a correlate and a cause.

  • Evaluate the dopamine and glutamate accounts, and their logical limits
  • Describe structural, network, and cognitive-neuroscience findings
  • Explain the neurodevelopmental model and its timing problem
  • Integrate psychological and social accounts across levels

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (2,197 words). Read along, or search it.

Psychotic Disorders and Disruptions to Reality

Explaining Schizophrenia

This section looks at the theoretical models and brain-based mechanisms proposed to explain schizophrenia. We evaluate the dopamine and glutamate accounts, and a logical limit they share. We look at structural, network, and cognitive findings, and at the neurodevelopmental model and its timing problem. Then we give psychological and social accounts the same seriousness, and finish with one person described at five levels.

Before You Begin

Group-Level Findings, Not Individual Verdicts

This material is educational. It is not a basis for diagnosing anyone, or for interpreting anyone's scan or test results. Three things should be held throughout. No biological marker currently diagnoses schizophrenia. The imaging and neurochemical findings described here are group-level associations, and they do not apply to any individual. And biological contribution does not mean determinism. Nothing here implies the condition is fixed, inevitable, or untreatable.

The Standard

What Any Model Must Explain

Before assessing any account, it helps to state what it has to explain. Five features constrain every model, and most models explain some but not others. First, symptom heterogeneity. Two people meeting the same criteria may share almost no features. A model producing one uniform disturbance will not generate that. Second, the age of onset, which clusters in late adolescence and early adulthood. A model must explain not only why the condition develops, but when. Third, the variable course, from single episode with full recovery to persistent difficulty. So the model cannot describe a uniformly progressive process. Fourth, partial treatment response. Medication acts substantially on positive symptoms, and poorly on negative and cognitive features. And fifth, familial aggregation. The condition runs in families, and any account must accommodate that without treating it as single-gene inheritance.

The Dopamine Hypothesis

The Treatment-Response Fallacy

The dopamine hypothesis, in its original form, proposed that schizophrenia results from excessive dopamine activity. The reasoning ran two ways. Medications that reduce psychotic symptoms were found to block dopamine receptors. And substances that increase dopamine activity can produce psychotic presentations. The logical limit here is the most instructive point in this section. Inferring a cause from what a treatment does is not valid reasoning. That a treatment acting on a system relieves a condition, shows the system is involved somewhere in the chain. It does not show that a disturbance of that system is the cause. The standard illustration is pain. Relief from a drug acting on one system, does not show that pain is caused by a disturbance of that system. This is sometimes called the treatment-response fallacy. Two further problems accumulated. Dopamine blockade happens within hours, while clinical improvement takes weeks. And many people respond poorly to dopamine-blocking treatment. So the hypothesis was enormously productive, but never established as a cause.

The Revised Dopamine Account

2 Pathways, Opposite Directions

The revised account keeps dopamine involvement, but becomes more specific about where. Instead of global excess, it proposes disturbances in opposite directions in different pathways. Excess activity in a subcortical pathway, associated with positive symptoms. And reduced activity in a pathway to the prefrontal cortex, associated with negative and cognitive features. That is a real gain. It predicts the treatment asymmetry. Blocking dopamine helps positive symptoms, but does nothing for, or even worsens, the reduced prefrontal activity. What remains unexplained is why the disturbances arise, why onset happens when it does, why improvement is delayed, and why treatment resistance is so common. So the revised account is more defensible than the original. It is still a proposal about mechanism, not an established cause.

Glutamate and Other Systems

Broader Coverage, Same Logical Limit

A second line of reasoning concerns glutamate, the brain's main excitatory transmitter. Compounds acting at a particular glutamate receptor produce states, in people without the condition, that resemble negative and cognitive features as well as positive ones. The stimulant model does that less well. That led to the proposal that disrupted glutamate signalling comes first, with dopamine changes following downstream. It accounts for a broader range of features. But it rests on the same reasoning from drug action, with the same logical limit. And treatments developed on this basis have not yet produced the clinical benefit the model predicted, which is a substantive difficulty. Systems involving serotonin and the main inhibitory transmitter are also implicated, in particular features. Their evidence is weaker.

Structure and Connectivity

From Regions to Networks

Imaging studies report group-level differences. Mainly larger ventricular volume, and reduced grey matter volume in several regions. These are among the more replicated findings, with three essential qualifications. First, they are group averages with heavily overlapping distributions. Many people with the condition fall within the comparison range, and many without it fall outside. Second, they are affected by illness duration and by treatment. So a difference seen at one point cannot be assumed to predate the condition. Third, and following from the first, they diagnose no one. The field has also moved from asking which region is abnormal, to asking how regions communicate. Findings suggest altered coordination between frontal and temporal regions, and in large-scale networks, rather than a discrete lesion. That fits the clinical picture better. Disturbances of belief, perception, and thought are unlikely to come from a single region, because those functions are themselves distributed.

Cognitive Neuroscience

Salience, Prediction, and Source Monitoring

Two leading proposals try to bridge neurochemistry and experience. The first concerns prediction. The brain continually predicts incoming input, and responds to mismatches. If that signalling is disturbed, ordinary events get the response reserved for unexpected ones. The system registers significance where none exists. Aberrant salience builds on this. Salience is what makes something capture attention, and it depends on dopamine. The proposal is that dysregulated dopamine attaches salience to things that do not warrant it. Ordinary events acquire an urgent, personal significance, and delusions arise as attempts to explain that experience. That explains why delusions are held with such conviction, and why they typically develop over time. It connects a neurochemical proposal to a psychological one. Source monitoring accounts address hallucinations. Source monitoring is how we tell internally generated events, like thoughts and inner speech, from external ones. The proposal is that hallucinations arise when that discrimination fails. Experimental evidence supports it. It explains the predominance of auditory experiences well, and other senses less well.

The Neurodevelopmental Model

Early Origin, Late Onset

The neurodevelopmental model is currently the most widely accepted framing of the condition's origins. It proposes that vulnerability begins in early brain development, before birth and in the first years, while symptoms emerge about two decades later. Three lines of evidence support it. Subtle differences in motor, cognitive, and social development are detectable at a group level in childhood, long before any symptom. Prenatal and perinatal factors are associated with later risk. And structural differences are present at first episode, before treatment, so they are not entirely a consequence of illness or medication. The proposed answer to the timing question involves adolescent brain maturation. Synaptic pruning eliminates a large share of connections in adolescence, and prefrontal circuits keep maturing into early adulthood. An early vulnerability may become clinically expressed when these processes act on an already atypical brain. That is the model's strongest claim, and also its least tested, because these processes are hard to measure in living people.

Figure 19.2.3

The Model Across the Lifespan

Here is the model laid out across the lifespan. Vulnerability originates in early development. Subtle differences can be detected at a group level in childhood. Pruning and prefrontal maturation unfold in adolescence. And symptoms emerge in early adulthood. Look at the dashed line and the gap it marks, about two decades long. That gap is the model's central obligation. An account placing the origin in early development must say what happens in between, and why symptoms appear when they do. A model that explains why but not when has answered half the question, and the easier half.

In the Clinic

Explaining Mechanism Without Determinism

Families often ask what caused this. The honest answer is complicated, in ways that can easily be heard as hopeless. Say plainly that no single cause is known, and that several factors combine. That is accurate, and usually heard as less frightening than a confident biological story. Say directly that biological contribution does not mean a fixed outcome, and connect that to the wide range of outcomes people have. Avoid language implying a broken part. A chemical imbalance is not what the evidence supports, and it invites the conclusion that only medication can help. Correct the assumption that a biological account rules out psychological and social treatment. The levels are not in competition. And where families ask about their own risk, defer to the careful treatment of genetics in the next section, rather than answering from impression.

Psychological Accounts

Taken as Seriously as the Biology

Psychological accounts deserve the same seriousness, because the evidence supports a multi-level explanation. The best-established reasoning bias is jumping to conclusions. On probability tasks, people with delusions reach confident conclusions on less evidence than comparison groups. But notice what that does not establish. It could be a cause, a consequence, or a correlate of cognitive difficulty. It is real, replicated, and of uncertain causal standing. Attributional accounts propose that a tendency to attribute negative events to others' intentions helps form persecutory beliefs, linked to anxiety, worry, and expectations formed through earlier experience. And there is a genuine shift in how emotion is understood. Anxiety, low mood, and poor sleep were long treated as reactions to psychotic symptoms. Evidence now suggests they contribute to them. That matters clinically, because it identifies treatable targets that do not require tackling the psychotic symptoms directly. Psychological therapy can reduce distress, which shows psychological processes help maintain the symptoms. It does not show they caused the condition. The fallacy runs both ways, and is easier to spot when it favors a model you do not hold.

Social Accounts

Robust Associations, Hard Interpretations

Several social associations are among the more robust findings in the field, and each carries an interpretation problem. Urban upbringing is associated with elevated rates. But do urban environments contribute, or do people with vulnerability move to, or stay in, cities? Elevated rates have been found among migrant and minority populations. The leading explanations are discrimination, exclusion, and social defeat, with any genetic-group interpretation explicitly rejected. Social defeat, meaning chronic experience of exclusion or subordinate position, may sensitize the dopamine system. That would connect the social level to the neurochemical one, but it is not established. Associations with childhood adversity are consistently reported, with the limits of retrospective report. And social isolation is linked with onset and course, with the direction unclear, since the condition also produces isolation.

Integration

Correlate, Mechanism, or Cause?

The stress-vulnerability framework currently holds these levels together. A vulnerability, largely neurodevelopmental and genetic, interacts with environmental exposure, and the condition emerges where the combination exceeds a threshold. It explains familial aggregation without determinism, why each environmental association is real but weak, and why most people with any risk factor never develop the condition. Its limit is its breadth. It accommodates almost any finding, and a framework that forbids nothing predicts nothing. It is an organizing structure, not a specific theory. One distinction does more work here than anywhere else in the course. A correlate co-occurs with the condition. A mechanism is a process through which an effect is produced. A cause makes a difference to whether the condition occurs. Reduced grey matter is a correlate. Aberrant salience is a proposed mechanism. And nothing in this section qualifies unambiguously as a cause. So ask of every finding which of the three it is. Much confident writing about this condition consists of correlates, described in the grammar of causes.

Table 19.2.5

What Findings Do - and Don't - Establish

Here are five findings, with what each establishes, and what it does not. Dopamine blockers reduce positive symptoms. That shows dopamine is involved, not that it is the cause. Group differences in brain volume are a replicated association. They do not diagnose anyone, and may not predate the condition. The jumping-to-conclusions bias is a real group difference in reasoning. It does not show the bias causes delusions. Therapy reducing distress shows psychological processes maintain symptoms, not that they caused the condition. And the urban association is robust, but not proof of causation. Notice how often the last column contains the word cause. The gap between the two columns is exactly where most overstatement about this condition happens.

Case Vignette (Composite)

Marco: One Person, 5 Levels

Finally, a composite case, constructed for instruction. Marco is twenty-five, diagnosed eighteen months ago after a first episode. At the molecular level, his positive symptoms responded to dopamine-blocking medication, while his negative symptoms and concentration did not. That is the asymmetry the revised account predicts. It does not explain why the disturbance arose, or why at twenty-three. At the circuit level, network accounts frame a condition of distributed functions. But these are group findings, and no scan of Marco's would be diagnostic. At the cognitive level, aberrant salience offers an account of how ordinary events came to seem urgently significant to him, and why his beliefs developed over weeks. It bridges molecules and experience, without establishing cause. At the psychological level, Marco worries a lot and sleeps poorly, and both go with increases in his symptoms. He also believes his diagnosis means his life is over, which is affecting his engagement. All of these are directly treatable. At the social level, he moved cities alone at twenty-one, has few local contacts, has been out of work since his episode, and his housing is insecure. That shapes whether treatment can hold, but not why him rather than others. Each level contributes something the others cannot, and none is sufficient alone. The question is not which level is really true, but what each one explains.

About Abnormal Psychology at UPI Study

Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) is a self-paced online course of 97 video lessons in 25 chapters, from the main theoretical perspectives and clinical assessment to anxiety, mood, psychotic and personality disorders, treatment and the law. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Why take it here

Why students take Abnormal Psychology with UPI Study

Understand mental health disordersAbnormal Psychology covers how psychological disorders are defined, assessed, explained and treated. It is a core course for psychology majors and useful for nursing, social work, counseling and criminal justice.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Abnormal Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Theoretical Models and Brain-Based Mechanisms Underlying Schizophrenia

What is the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia?
The dopamine hypothesis originally proposed that schizophrenia results from excess dopamine activity, because antipsychotic drugs block dopamine receptors and dopamine-boosting drugs can cause psychosis. Inferring a cause from a treatment's action is invalid, however, a problem called the treatment-response fallacy. The revised version proposes excess subcortical dopamine activity linked to positive symptoms and reduced prefrontal activity linked to negative and cognitive symptoms. It remains a proposed mechanism, not an established cause.
What is the neurodevelopmental model of schizophrenia?
The neurodevelopmental model proposes that vulnerability to schizophrenia begins in early brain development, before birth and in the first years, while symptoms emerge about two decades later. Support comes from subtle group-level childhood differences, prenatal and perinatal risk factors, and brain differences present at first episode. It suggests adolescent synaptic pruning and prefrontal maturation may unmask the early vulnerability, which is the model's strongest claim and its least tested.
What is aberrant salience in psychosis?
Aberrant salience is the proposal that dysregulated dopamine attaches significance to ordinary events that do not warrant it, so they feel urgent and personally meaningful. Delusions are then understood as attempts to explain that strange experience. The idea helps explain why delusions are held with such conviction and usually develop over time. It links a neurochemical account to a psychological one, but it is a proposed mechanism, not a proven cause.
What is the stress-vulnerability model of schizophrenia?
The stress-vulnerability model holds that a vulnerability, largely neurodevelopmental and genetic, interacts with environmental exposures, and schizophrenia emerges where the combination exceeds a threshold. It explains why the condition runs in families without being determined, why each environmental risk factor is real but weak, and why most people with a risk factor never develop the condition. Its weakness is breadth: it accommodates almost any finding, so it organizes evidence rather than making specific predictions.

About the Abnormal Psychology course

How many college credits is Abnormal Psychology?
Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Abnormal Psychology cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 97 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Abnormal Psychology take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 97 lessons total about 24 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Abnormal Psychology.

97 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Abnormal Psychology →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Abnormal Psychology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →