Supermodels

Last week I was overwhelmed by the complexity of depression and how far we are from thoroughly understanding it. This week, on the other hand, I’m excited by how comprehensive and convincing our models for anxiety are. Compared to Coyne’s portrayal of the hyper-dimensional moving target that is depression, anxiety looks like, well, like a series of well-appointed flowcharts. (See Barlow’s figures 1 through 7.) There seems to be relative tranquility about the etiology of anxiety.

Barlow presents us with an “integrated” model. Mineka and Zinbarg lay out the “range of variables (that) can lead to a rich and nuanced understanding of the etiology and course of anxiety disorders.” B and M&Z have different theories as their points of departure, and M&Z address the six major anxiety disorders (and how principles of classical and operative conditioning apply), whereas Barlow basically addresses his “three vulnerabilities” separately. Barlow could have easily stated his same ideas about how life events become a “vulnerability” in the learning terms of M&Z. I don’t think these models are at all at odds.

The beauty of these thorough models (that the authors mention in passing) is their applicability to prevention (anxiety immunization is the coolest idea ever) and intervention. My hunch is that too few therapist apply these sophisticated models to their work with patients.

Why is such a harmoniously integrated model exceptional? (Please correct me if I’m wrong or overstating this.) Why are other areas of psychology still struggling to integrate perspectives in this way? Does that say more about the nature of anxiety or the nature of the discipline of psychology?