Biological psychiatric problems get less empathy, Yale study finds |

Biological psychiatric problems get less empathy, Yale study finds

Given more information about the biology of a mental disorder, doctors and therapists react with less empathy for the patient, a study finds.

The study didn’t involve real patients — only short descriptions of fictional cases. Still, it found that psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers expressed less empathy for patients with conditions explained as biological rather than psychological.

The findings challenge the notion that biological explanations of mental illness boost compassion for millions of Americans who suffer from psychological conditions.

“Our study demonstrates an example of the downside of the trend toward increasingly biological conceptualizations of mental health,” lead author Matthew Lebowitz told Reuters Health.

“Overemphasizing this idea that people with mental disorders have something fundamentally wrong with their brains can be dehumanizing,” he said.

Lebowitz, a psychology graduate student at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and his colleagues asked 343 American clinicians to read fictional stories about mental health patients paired with explanations based wholly or partly on either genetics and neurobiology, or on childhood experiences and stressful life circumstances.

The vignettes described people with social phobias, schizophrenia, depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

In one, for example, the biological explanation for a college student’s crippling shyness was that her mother and brother also were shy, and an MRI technician found a part of her brain involved with fear was more active than normal. The psychosocial explanation instead offered details of the shy student’s history of childhood bullying.

Overall, the clinicians responded with less empathy for stories with symptoms based on biological factors and more empathy for stories based on psychosocial factors, the researchers reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

All clinicians reacted with less empathy to biological explanations and with more empathy to psychological explanations of symptoms. But medical doctors reported significantly less empathy overall than other clinicians, the study found. The authors could not explain why.

The study authors called the results “alarming.”

“One of the benefits often touted for the biological explanations of mental disorders is that they can reduce blame and personal responsibility for their symptoms,” Lebowitz said. “But there are some problems with that. Biological explanations can start to dehumanize patients.”

The authors note that the vignettes they presented were oversimplified and failed to capture the complexity of the etiology of mental disorders.

If true, however, they caution that the findings may lead clinicians away from proven psychotherapy treatments. The study found biological explanations were tied to clinicians believing less in psychotherapy and more in medication.

James Tabery, a professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, said he found the findings “worrisome.”

Tabery and Lebowitz both see mental health conditions as resulting from a combination of genetics, neurobiology and life experience.

“To reduce it all to one is to miss that complex story,” Tabery said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.