# Is the mainstream construction of mood disorders resistant to systemic thinking?

## TL;DR

This study examines how mood disorders are typically explained in psychology textbooks, finding a strong focus on biomedical theories despite criticism.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a novel analysis of mainstream psychopathology explanations using the '1to3' coding system.

## Key findings

- Dominant explanations of mood disorders rely heavily on monadic and biomedical models.
- Intrapersonal and dyadic explanations are underrepresented in textbook accounts.
- The chemical imbalance theory remains prevalent despite lack of evidence.

## Abstract

In this study we explore how the diagnostic category of mood disorders is constructed in two handbooks of Psychopathology as an example of the mainstream construction of psychopathology. Despite the increasing criticism and lack of evidence, the debunked chemical imbalance theory of the etiology of depression still dominates the professional and pop/folk understanding and interventions.

We analysed the breadth of the inference field and the type of etiopathogenetic contents of the explanations of mood disorders using the “1to3” Coding System.

Our findings show that the dominant explanations draw almost exclusively onto monadic explanations, followed by limited dyadic ones. Intrapersonal etiopathogenetic contents prevailed, and biomedical explanations were dominant in both textbooks.

We critically discuss the underpinnings of these results and address the clinical implications of these biased representations, as well as potential alternative approaches to psychopathology.