4.3 Article

An integrative evolutionary framework for psychopathology

Journal

DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 1-11

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0954579421000870

Keywords

comorbidity; evolutionary psychiatry; evolutionary psychopathology; heterogeneity; life history strategies; p factor; transdiagnostic models

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Psychopathology is undergoing a transformative phase, with renewed interest in theoretical models of mental disorders. This paper presents an integrative framework based on life history theory and describes a taxonomy of mental disorders. The model explains comorbidity and provides new insights into the role of environmental factors and developmental trajectories.
The field of psychopathology is in a transformative phase, and is witnessing a renewed surge of interest in theoretical models of mental disorders. While many interesting proposals are competing for attention in the literature, they tend to focus narrowly on the proximate level of analysis and lack a broader understanding of biological function. In this paper, we present an integrative framework for mental disorders built on concepts from life history theory, and describe a taxonomy of mental disorders based on its principles, the fast-slow-defense model (FSD). The FSD integrates psychopathology with normative individual differences in personality and behavior, and allows researchers to draw principled distinctions between broad clusters of disorders, as well as identify functional subtypes within current diagnostic categories. Simulation work demonstrates that the model can explain the large-scale structure of comorbidity, including the apparent emergence of a general p factor of psychopathology. A life history approach also provides novel integrative insights into the role of environmental risk/protective factors and the developmental trajectories of various disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available