Psychiatry may be emerging from the era of psychopharmacology and entering the era of the brain, but these reductionist, jingoistic labels do little justice to the need to acknowledge and incorporate the context of our lives into our theories and treatments. Yet psychiatrists who embrace context have much to celebrate in evolving neuroscience research.
One aptly named article – ’Families that fire together smile together’ – illustrates the fundamental connection between parent and child.1 In the functional MRIs (fMRIs) taken of these parent-child dyads (n = 76), the dyads with similar resting state connectomes also have similar day-to-day emotional states, as reflected in their diary entries. Their empathic states were identified in the multivoxel patterns in the fusiform face area of the brain.2 Another study of fMRIs and parent-child dyads (n = 93) found that the parental functional connectomes (fbc) predicted their children’s externalizing and internalizing problems. The maternal fbcs were correlated with the daughter-mother relationship, and to the daughter’s internalizing problems, suggesting a potential future focus on gendered relationships.3
Dr. Alison M. Heru
The implications for psychotherapy are clear: These studies show that empathic connection between parent and child results in a better outcome for the child. Patient and psychotherapist can choose from a range of psychotherapeutic interventions that promote empathy, from providing behavioral tasks that support connection between parent and child to more in-depth family interventions. Family interventions that promote empathy include increasing the family’s understanding of the importance of empathic connection and providing a safe space to help establish empathic connection.
Studying prosocial behavior, Lukas Lengersdorff and colleagues found that fMRIs of male participants (n = 96) reflected stronger activity when they were acting on behalf of the other, rather than when acting for themselves.4 During this prosocial learning fMRI study, there was stronger engagement of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and higher connectivity between the ventromedial PFC and the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ). Protecting others from harm appears to be associated with neural mechanisms that support self-relevant learning, but with the added recruitment of structures associated with the social brain. This study shows what we already know – that our brains are wired for social context. This research supports psychotherapeutic interventions aimed at creating interpersonal connection, not just at an intimate level, but also at the prosocial level, such as caring and helping others.
When social interactions are coded, the default mode network (DMN) shows increased activity. Participants (n = 11) in another study had heightened medial PFC–rTPJ connectivity, not only during rest that followed the experimental social encoding, but also during rest that followed a subsequent, nonsocial task.5 Engaging portions of the DMN during live social interactions when actively decoding the social environment, and later engaging these regions when relaxing after the social interaction, appears to facilitate social functioning. Our brains are wired to respond to context. This research underscores the positive impact of interventions such as group therapy and support groups, two underutilized modalities.
Neuroscience evaluation of our relationships provides depth to studies that fall under the medical paradigm of the gene/environment interaction. One of the most elegant in psychiatry is the Finnish study of a sample of offspring of mothers with schizophrenia who gave their children up for adoption.6 This sample of index offspring (n = 155) was compared blindly with matched controls (n = 186) of adopted/away offspring of parents without schizophrenia. The genetic effect manifested only as a psychiatric disorder in the presence of a disturbed family environment. We can now extrapolate certain possible mechanisms from the studies mentioned above: That the deficits lie in the activity or lack of activity in the DMN and associated areas, and in the generation of connectomes responsible for empathic connections.
Neuroscience expands our knowledge of our relational and social worlds, but can psychiatry make the case for inclusion of context in our conceptualization of psychiatric distress? From time to time, inroads are made, for example, the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning was incorporated into the DSM-IV-R and the Cultural Formulation Interview is in the DSM-5. However, without a sustained paradigm shift that places the gene/environment paradigm at the core of psychiatry, these efforts will rise and fall as the pioneers in these fields rise and fall.
A major barrier to moving the gene/environment paradigm more centrally in psychiatry is the prominence of individualism as an American ideal. As the neuroscience of context develops, we will be able to argue more robustly for a contextual approach to patient care.
A second barrier is the difficulty of teaching and learning about complexity. It is easy to learn how to use the DSM to make a diagnosis, to understand when and how to prescribe medications, but it is much more difficult to understand how to incorporate the complexity of life and the context within which we live, into our lexicon of psychiatric theories and treatments. As Tanya Luhrmann, PhD, points out in her study of the process of psychiatric training, residents are intimidated by the need to learn the many psychological theories and their practice; learning about medications is much simpler and takes much less time and effort.7
Nevertheless, context is embraced by several psychiatric subspecialties. Family psychiatrists recognize the power of relational dynamics in the family, and their role in shaping the individual. From understanding family communication patterns, to understanding how roles in the family get allocated, family psychiatry has well established tools for assessment and many evidence-based treatments that focus on changing relational dynamics. Social and community psychiatrists emphasize the role of race, poverty, and access, and support the assessment and treatment of the underprivileged. Cultural psychiatrists recognize that each culture has its own way of constructing identities and shaping our experiences, its own conceptualization of illness and specific idioms of distress. Cultural psychiatrists focus on sensitizing the general psychiatrist to these nuances. Child psychiatrists involve parents, and geriatric psychiatrists involve guardians. General psychiatrists understand context when, for example, understanding the role of trauma in the development of an individual, recognizing that its impact is contingent on the context within which the trauma occurs.
Neuroscience clarifies the neural pathways involved in the development of empathic and social behaviors. Our psychological theories and practice must reflect this advancement. We can teach the relevant neuroscience along with basic concepts such as child-parent relationships. We must assess an individual’s degree of fit within their family and community. Apart from asking relational questions, such as who in your world is important to you, we can use well recognized tools to help us bring context to the forefront. An easy tool is the three generational genogram, or an ecomap, which allows each individual to see where they sit in the context of their world.8 Cultural influences, societal, religious, and family influences can be drawn on the genogram, highlighting both formal and hidden family narratives. In addition, we can share how the brain works with our patients; the science of empathy and social behaviors shows us that our need for interpersonal connection is hardwired.
Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Contact Dr. Heru at alison.heru@ucdenver.edu.
References
1. Lee TH et al. Families that fire together smile together: Resting state connectome similarity and daily emotional synchrony in parent-child dyads. Neuroimage. 2017 May 15;152:31-37. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.078.
2. Lee TH et al. Love flows downstream: Mothers’ and children’s neural representation similarity in perceiving distress of self and family. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017 Dec 1;12(12):1916-27. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx125.
3. Itahashi T et al. Functional connectomes linking child-parent relationships with psychological problems in adolescence. Neuroimage. 2020 Oct 1;219:117013. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117013.
4. Lengersdorff LL et al. When implicit prosociality trumps selfishness: The neural valuation system underpins more optimal choices when learning to avoid harm to others than to oneself. J Neurosci. 2020 Sep 16;40(38):7286-99. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0842-20.2020.
5. Meyer ML et al. Evidence that default network connectivity during rest consolidates social information. Cereb Cortex. 2019 May 1;29(5):1910-20. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhy071.
6. Tienari P et al. The Finnish adoptive family study of schizophrenia. Implications for family research. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1994 Apr;(23):20-6.
7. Luhrmann, TM. Of two minds: The growing disorder in American psychiatry. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.
8. Libbon R et al. Family skills for the resident toolbox: The 10-min. Genogram, Ecomap, and Prescribing Homework. Acad Psychiatry. 2019 Aug;43(4):435-439. doi: 10.1007/s40596-019-01054-6.