4.4 Article

Biocognitive Classification of Antisocial Individuals Without Explanatory Reductionism

期刊

PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 957-972

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1745691620904160

关键词

antisocial personality disorder; psychopathy; Research Domain Criteria; explanatory reductionism; biocognitive classification; psychiatric nosology

资金

  1. Croatian Science Foundation [IP-2018-01-3518]
  2. University of Rijeka Small Grant [17.05.2.2.04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective and specifically targeted social and therapeutic responses for antisocial personality disorders and psychopathy are scarce. Some authors maintain that this scarcity should be overcome by revising current syndrome-based classifications of these conditions and devising better biocognitive classifications of antisocial individuals. The inspiration for the latter classifications has been embedded in the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) approach. RDoC-type approaches to psychiatric research aim at transforming diagnosis, provide valid measures of disorders, aid clinical practice, and improve health outcomes by integrating the data on the genetic, neural, cognitive, and affective systems underlying psychiatric conditions. In the first part of the article, we discuss the benefits of such approaches compared with the dominant syndrome-based approaches and review recent attempts at building biocognitive classifications of antisocial individuals. Other researchers, however, have objected that biocognitive approaches in psychiatry are committed to an untenable form of explanatory reductionism. Explanatory reductionism is the view that psychological disorders can be exclusively categorized and explained in terms of their biological causes. In the second part of the article, we argue that RDoC-like approaches need not be associated with explanatory reductionism. Moreover, we argue how this is the case for a specific biocognitive approach to classifying antisocial individuals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据