To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Explanatory frameworks for mental disorders influence stigmatisation and clinical attitudes. Mechanistic biological explanations often yield negative effects on prognostic optimism and empathy. Evolutionary framings might reduce stigma, but this has rarely been tested empirically.
Aims
To experimentally test whether a brief educational intervention presenting an evolutionary explanation of anxiety, compared with a genetic explanation, would influence clinicians’ attitudes in directions consistent with anti-stigma goals.
Method
In this pre-registered, multi-site, cluster-randomised trial, 171 practising mental health clinicians across the UK and Ireland were randomised by session to receive a 30 min educational presentation on either evolutionary or genetic explanations for anxiety. Pre- and post-session questionnaires assessed clinicians’ optimism regarding patient recovery, perceived efficacy of psychosocial interventions, expected patient willingness to share diagnosis and seek help and perceived usefulness of the information. Data were analysed using Bayesian cumulative ordinal regression models.
Results
In line with pre-registered hypotheses, clinicians rated evolutionary explanations as substantially more useful for patients (odds ratio 5.05, 95% credible interval [2.46, 10.28], latent standard deviation shift 1.07) and for clinicians (odds ratio 3.10, 95% credible interval [1.62, 5.81], latent standard deviation shift 0.76) compared with genetic explanations. Evolutionary explanations also resulted in higher anticipated public willingness to seek psychiatric help (odds ratio 1.79, 95% credible interval [0.93, 3.35]) and share a diagnosis (odds ratio 1.62, 95% credible interval [0.88, 2.97]); optimism about patient recovery (odds ratio 1.58, 95% credible interval [0.71, 3.46]); perceived effectiveness of psychosocial interventions (odds ratio 1.62, 95% credible interval [0.84, 3.10]); and belief in the functional usefulness of negative emotions (β = 0.25 s.d., 95% credible interval [0.01, 0.49]). These effects were driven by both positive pre–post effects of evolutionary education and negative pre–post effects of genetic education compared with pre-education baseline. Exploratory analysis showed further anti-stigma effects.
Conclusions
Framing anxiety through an evolutionary lens substantially improved clinicians’ attitudes on various measures of stigmatisation compared with genetic explanations, and was rated as highly useful for both clinicians and patients.
This article reflects on a collaborative drawing group in a mother and baby unit, exploring the clinical value of arts-based interventions in perinatal psychiatry. Grounded in an evolutionary and biopsychosocial theory, it highlights how creative practice can reduce hierarchy, support emotion regulation and foster relational safety. A practical group model is described, encouraging clinicians to draw on their own creative skills to enrich care, build connection and hold space for meaning beyond symptom management.
Soper's ‘pain and brain’ evolutionary theory of suicide has significant explanatory power and deserves wider consideration and scrutiny in the mainstream psychiatric literature. It provides a novel framework for thinking about the problem of suicide and could have an important impact on research as well as clinical practice. However, we raise questions and concerns regarding the prediction the theory makes regarding common mental disorders being anti-suicide adaptations.
This editorial outlines the formation of a new special interest group (SIG) in evolution and psychiatry. The formative beginnings of the evolutionary psychiatry field and founding of the group in Ireland are presented, identifying central figures of the field and their contributions. Furthermore, key milestones and accomplishments are discussed with current and future directions. Additionally, foundational texts and seminal papers are included to guide the reader in their journey to discover more about evolution and psychiatry. We hope this will be of relevance to those interested in how SIGs form and also to clinicians with an interest in evolutionary psychiatry.
This introductory chapter serves multiple purposes. Its primary aim is to introduce psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who are new to Darwinian thinking to some of the basic concepts and terminology of evolutionary science in order to ease their progress through the remaining chapters of this volume. Another aim is to provide a distillation and update of some significant theoretical and other developments in a variety of evolutionary disciplines relevant to psychiatry and psychology that would be of benefit to all readers, including existing evolutionists. Given the constraints of space, there will inevitably be significant omissions. We have elected to cover the basics of standard evolutionary theory, as well as some of the basic principles of evolutionary psychology and medicine. We also briefly survey some of the recent developments in the evolutionary literature on cultural evolution and related fields. We recognise that a balance needs to be struck between covering as wide an area as possible without the chapter becoming a glossary of terms. Readers unfamiliar with specialised evolutionary terms are advised to consult the glossary on the Evolutionary Psychiatry Special Interest Group at the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ website: www.epsig.org (click on ‘About us’ then ‘Resources’).
Discovering why natural selection has left humans vulnerable to mental disorders will make psychiatry more sensible and effective, but defining the appropriate objects and kinds of explanation remains challenging. Asking how a disorder increases fitness is a mistake; disorders are not adaptations and they do not have evolutionary explanations. The correct objects of explanation are the traits that make all members of a species vulnerable to a disorder. Task 1 is to describe the evolutionary origins and functions of the traits involved. Task 2 is to describe the proximate processes that result in the disorder. Task 3 is to discover why natural selection left the traits vulnerable to malfunction. Five main kinds of explanation need to be considered: stochasticity, path dependence, mismatch, trade-offs that benefit the individual and traits that benefit gene transmission at a cost to the individual. Depression, addiction, eating disorders, autism and schizophrenia are used to illustrate the opportunities and challenges of framing and testing hypotheses about vulnerability. Multiple explanations are often needed for a single disorder, frustrating the wish for simplicity. However, recognising the fundamental differences between organic and designed systems offers opportunities for resolving – or at least understanding – some enduring controversies in psychiatry.
In Western culture, both the lay public and mental health professionals tend to believe that mothers evolved to love all of their children instinctually and unconditionally. In contrast, any mother who feels ambivalence or hostility towards her child is typically seen as unnatural, and a mother who maltreats her child is seen as behaving pathologically. This chapter draws on evolutionary research to challenge this widespread view of motherhood. In particular, it describes how raising children has required mothers to negotiate a series of complex, precarious and layered trade-offs, and it argues that maternal negativity and child maltreatment can arise from this. The goal of this chapter is to foster a more evolutionarily valid, nuanced and compassionate understanding of motherhood. Such an understanding has the potential to contribute to clinical work with faltering mothers as well as to programmes focused on preventing maternal maltreatment of children.
Anxiety disorders make sense only in the evolutionary context of the origins and functions of normal anxiety. Anxiety is an adaptation that adjusts diverse aspects of individuals in ways that increase fitness in dangerous situations. Subtypes were partially differentiated by different dangers. Anxiety is not fully differentiated from other aversive emotions, especially low mood. Anxiety disorders result when regulation systems fail. Explaining them requires considering five possible reasons for vulnerability. However, much harmful anxiety arises from normal mechanisms. These insights are valuable in the clinic, and they suggest new research initiatives.
Psychopharmacology is the scientific study of the effects of drugs on thoughts, emotions and behaviour as well as the therapeutic implications of their role in treating mental disorders. Psychopharmacology focuses on understanding relevant mental processes as the key to finding new medications and improving clinical outcomes in mental disorder. Interconnected with this, neuropsychopharmacology is the complementary discipline of the study of the basic neural mechanisms that drugs act upon to influence behaviour. Progress has been slow in recent decades with no major new classes of medication being added to the psychiatric formulary. We suggest that evolutionary thinking brings novel additional scientific perspectives to psychiatry and its basic sciences that highlight the evolutionary history of cell communication, neurotransmission and substances that can alter the brain in various ways. Evolutionary perspectives of function and phylogeny also provide a deeper understanding of how natural as well as artificial chemicals (i.e. psychotropic medications) utilise evolved neuronal pathways for their actions. Evolutionary theory can thereby help us to understand the psychological effects and side effects of psychotropic medications as well as assist in the discovery and testing of new drugs.
Psychiatric therapeutics is facing a major crisis that originates from its limited efficacy and dubious scientific credibility. Such a crisis requires a radical change in the paradigm that inspires psychiatric research and clinical practice. The new paradigm should integrate in a meaningful way all of the variables that mediate the aetiology and pathogenesis of psychiatric disorders: biological, psychological, developmental, behavioural and social. The essence of the evolutionary study of human psychology and behaviour is just such an integration. Therefore, evolutionary thinking has great potential to improve the clinical care of psychiatric patients. According to a modern view of medicine, the aims of therapy are not only to lessen symptoms and to reverse the pathogenic mechanisms, but also to restore the congruence between a patient’s functional capacities and the conditions of the environment. Evolutionary thinking suggests replacing symptoms with functional capacities as the primary targets of psychiatric treatment. Most mental disorders are conditions of compromised functional capacities. Therapy should aim at improving patients’ capacities necessary to enact behaviours associated with goal achievement. When treating patients, clinicians should distinguish between symptoms caused by dysfunctional mechanisms and symptoms that are adaptive reactions to environmental situations with negative cost–benefit outcomes.
We propose that major depressive disorder is not a unitary disease. Instead, different triggering factors causing periods of low mood can give rise to different and sometimes even opposite symptom patterns. Some of the symptoms of depression are maladaptive; others may be psychobehavioural adaptions to solve the adaptive problem that triggered the depressive episode. It is therefore logical to subtype depressive episodes according to their triggering factors. In evolutionary psychiatry, depressive episodes can be classified into discrete subtypes that are induced by infection, long-term stress, loneliness, traumatic experience, hierarchy conflict, grief, romantic relationship dissolution, post-partum events, season, chemicals, somatic diseases and starvation. In hunter-gatherers and in people who have traditional lifestyles, periods of low mood only rarely turn into episodes that fulfil the diagnostic criteria of major depressive disorder. Modern lifestyles cause low-grade inflammation and an increased susceptibility to chronic stress, which introduce symptoms of sickness behaviour into reactive short-term mood changes. Therefore, features of contemporary environments may prevent the normalisation of mood after adverse life events, resulting in major depressive disorder. An evolutionary approach to depression helps to identify the factors in our environments and lifestyles that contribute to greater susceptibility to this debilitating disorder, which can inform both prevention and treatment of depression. We further propose that the treatment of major depressive disorder should be tailored according to the patient’s depression subtype, focusing on the root causes of the disorder rather than alleviating symptoms with drugs.
Sexual concerns and dysfunctions are common, complex, and result in significant distress for individuals and couples.In spite of the vital role sex plays in our lives, defining sexual function and dysfunction is complicated by the multitude of variables impacting sexual behavior: biological, instinctual, emotional, interpersonal, social, cultural, as well as personal sexual history.Further, our understanding of human sexuality is currently in flux in response to changing sociocultural interpretations.The inconsistency with which we currently define typical sexual function is complicated by our incomplete understanding and acknowledgement of how evolutionary influences impact sexual function.Human sexuality is influenced not only by our socially constructed ideals, but also by a deeper physiology that transcends cultural ideals and understanding. In this chapter, we argue that some proportion of a person’s sexual experience is generated via unconscious means through evolutionary forces manifesting as innate reactions and desires.These evolutionary influences manifest in human sexual behavior in nuanced yet profound ways.Thus, conscious sociocultural decisions about what constitutes “appropriate” sexual function may be of limited value in the privacy of people’s bedrooms without embracing evolution’s impact. The unfortunate tendency to disregard evolutionary biology by the mental health community leaves patients with an incomplete understanding of their sexual and relationship struggles.Further, this lack of understanding risks our labeling typical female sexual function as dysfunctional, and translates into less effective treatments for those suffering with sexual concerns.Evolutionary theory does not offer insight into all human sexual function and dysfunction.However, it is a relevant aspect of the story for many individuals who struggle sexually.Acknowledging our sexual adaptations and instinctive tendences results in less pathologizing of sexual desires, less shaming of ourselves and others, and less self-blame and personalization of a partner’s sexual inclinations.Sexual satisfaction and self-acceptance have dramatic implications in people’s lives and relationships that extend far outside the bedroom.Sexual satisfaction impacts relationship satisfaction and even life satisfaction.Clinical experience reveals how encouraging the sexual vulnerability inherent in our more primitive sexual tendencies make sex more satisfying, and perhaps more importantly, it deepens lovers’ emotional connection. The most loving, open-minded thing we can do for ourselves is to embrace our humanness, rather than deny it.This chapter explores ways evolutionary forces may impact female sexual function and dysfunction.Greater clarity on evolutionary influences impacting people’s sexual experience can support women and their partners in creating the sex lives they long for, as well as assist medical practioners in developing more targeted and thus more effective treatment plans for their patients.
The main areas of male sexual disorders recognized by sexual medicine are paraphilic disorders and sexual dysfunctions This chapter offers an overview of the contributions of evolutionarily informed approach to the aetiology of male paraphilic disorders, with some space dedicated also to an evolutionary view of male sexual dysfunctions. First, the details of an evolutionary sexology (ES) approach are explained: (1) ES is relatively independent of current sexologic diagnoses. In contrast with the traditional medical and legal view, it is also independent of current sociocultural norms; (2) An advantage of ESis that symptoms themselves might be viewed as separate units of selection or parts of different complex evolutionarily relevant phenomena; (3) recent evolutionarily informed theories explain sexual disorders using a combination of nature and nurture reasoning; (4) ES combines the theoretical approach ofevolutionary psychology and ethology with knowledge of human phylogenetic history and selective pressures in the pleistocene environment of evolutionary adaptedness. An evolutionary framework views some male sexual disorders as adaptive behavioral strategies selected over evolutionary history because they increased the reproductive success of our ancestors, but they might also be viewed as maladaptive margins of the variability within the normophilic spectrum. A major part of the chapter is dedicated to evolutionary perspectives on paraphilic sexual interests (paraphilias) and disorders (according to current diagnostic manual (DSM-5, American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013), the latter characterized by either paraphilia-related distress or antisocial behavior). Throughout the chapter, we distinguish between paraphilias and sexual offending. We provide evidence for the biological as well as developmental correlates of paraphilia and explain their possible placement in multidimensional sexual orientation space. We also summarize recent evidence on the prevalence of paraphilias in current populations. Finally, the dominant evolutionarily informed theories of the aetiology of common paraphilic interests and disorders (i.e., chronophilia, fetishism, nonconsent related paraphilias, and sadomasochism) and male sexual dysfunctions are described.
Traditional evolutionary theory invoked natural and sexual selection to explain species- and sex-typical traits. However, some heritable inter-individual variability in behaviour and psychology – personality – is probably adaptive. Here we extend this insight to common psychopathological traits. Reviewing key findings from three background areas of importance – theoretical models, non-human personality and evolved human social dynamics – we propose that a combination of social niche specialisation, negative frequency-dependency, balancing selection and adaptive developmental plasticity should explain adaptation for individual differences in psychology – ‘specialised minds’ – explaining some variance in personality and psychopathology trait dimensions, which share various characteristics. We suggest that anthropological research of behavioural differences should be extended past broad demographic factors (age and sex) to include individual specialisations. As a first step towards grounding psychopathology in ancestral social structure, we propose a minimum plausible prevalence, given likely ancestral group sizes, for negatively frequency-dependent phenotypes to be maintained as specialised tails of adaptive distributions – below the calculated prevalence, specialisation is highly unlikely. For instance, chronic highly debilitating forms of autism or schizophrenia are too rare for such explanations, whereas attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder and broad autism phenotypes are common enough to have existed in most hunter-gatherer bands, making adaptive explanations more plausible.
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.
In this paper, I explain why evolutionary psychiatry is not where the next revolution in psychiatry will come from. I will proceed as follows. Firstly, I will review some of the problems commonly attributed to current nosologies, more specifically to the DSM. One of these problems is the lack of a clear and consensual definition of mental disorder; I will then examine specific attempts to spell out such a definition that use the evolutionary framework. One definition that deserves particular attention (for a number of reasons that I will mention later), is one put forward by Jerome Wakefield. Despite my sympathy for his position, I must indicate a few reasons why I think his attempt might not be able to resolve the problems related to current nosologies. I suggest that it might be wiser for an evolutionary psychiatrist to adopt the more integrative framework of “treatable conditions”. As it is thought that an evolutionary approach can contribute to transforming the way we look at mental disorders, I will provide a brief sketch of the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology. The picture of the architecture of the human mind that emerges from evolutionary psychology is thought by some to be the crucial backdrop to identifying specific mental disorders and distinguishing them from normal conditions. I will also provide two examples of how evolutionary thinking is supposed to change our thinking about some disorders. Using the case of depression, I will then show what kind of problems evolutionary explanations of particular psychopathologies encounter. In conclusion, I will evaluate where evolutionary thinking leaves us in regard to what I identify as the main problems of our current nosologies. I’ll then argue that the prospects of evolutionary psychiatry are not good.
It remains a mystery as to how genetic and environmental factors cause schizophrenia.
Objective:
To develop a pathophysiological model of schizophrenia that has greater explanatory power than existing hypotheses of the disorder.
Method:
Published findings on schizophrenia are integrated with more recent data from human and animal studies of striatal and cerebellar functions.
Results:
The analysis shows that during phylo- and ontogenesis two primarily motor-control mechanisms are applied at the intentional (limbic) level of functioning to organize emotional and cognitive behavior: one for initiating and dosing (drive) and the other for the representational guidance (guidance) of both movements and intentions. The intentional drive and guidance mechanisms are organized through a ventral, respectively, a dorsal cortical–subcortical circuitry.
Conclusions:
A deficient implementation of these mechanisms at the limbic domain manifests itself as schizophrenia, whereby the heterogeneity in symptomatology is explained by the extent of the remaining cerebral activity and by the degree of indirect activation of these systems. In general, activation manifests itself as positive symptomatology and the absence of such activation as negative symptomatology. The model provides a more comprehensive explanation for existing clinical and epidemiological data than do the current alternatives. It is compatible with the major prevailing views on the illness, such as the theories that regard this as a progressive neurodevelopmental, or a connectivity disorder, or one resulting from a deficient cerebral lateralization, or an interrupted cortico–thalamo–cerebello–cortical circuitry. The model fits with recent theories in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary psychiatry.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.