journal article Jul 30, 2019

Group life shapes the psychology and biology of health: The case for a sociopsychobio model

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/spc3.12490
Abstract
Abstract

Engel presented a compelling case for a biopsychosocial model of health. This challenged a biomedical model that he saw as reductionistic, physicalistic, and exclusionist. Yet despite its laudable goals and popularity, the biopsychosocial model can be faulted for being incremental, imprecise, and individualistic. Ultimately, this means it is no less reductionist than the biomedical model which it sought to supplant. In this paper, we present a reformulation of this model that foregrounds the capacity for social groups—and the social contexts in which those groups are embedded—to structure psychology and, through this, biology and health. This
sociopsychobio
model argues that the three elements of Engel's framework are not fixed and immutable but rather dynamic and interdependent. The model is consistent with a range of recent approaches to health that have focused on the important role that social class, social inequality, social structure, and social networks play in shaping health outcomes. In this paper, though, the concrete value of this reformulation is illustrated through a discussion of recent research that focuses on the role of group memberships and associated social identities in shaping the psychology and biology of stress. This review underlines two key points that are central to the general case for a sociopsychobio model of health. First, that groups are a force in the world that shape the psychology and biology of their members (as well as members of other groups) in ways that cannot be reduced to those group members' functioning as individuals. Second, that groups provide their members with a basis for seeking to change the world rather than simply accepting it. In this, group life is not merely an appendage to psychology and biology but is instead a basis for collective experiences that have the potential to unleash new expressions of both.
Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References
123
[2]
Alexander B. K. (2008)
[3]
Anisman H. (2016)
[4]
Anisman H. (2016)
[5]
Beck J. S. (2011)
[7]
Limitations of the biopsychosocial model in psychiatry

Tony Benning

Advances in Medical Education and Practice 10.2147/amep.s82937
[14]
Cacioppo J. T. (2008)
[24]
Cwikel J. (2006)
[27]
Dunbar R. I. M. "The social brain hypothesis" Brain (1998)
[28]
Dunbar R. I. M. (2013)
[29]
A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder

Anke Ehlers, David M. Clark

Behaviour Research and Therapy 10.1016/s0005-7967(99)00123-0
[30]
The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine

George L. Engel

Science 10.1126/science.847460
[33]
Coping: Pitfalls and Promise

Susan Folkman, Judith Tedlie Moskowitz

Annual Review of Psychology 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456
[35]
Ghaemi S. N. "The biopsychosocial model in psychiatry: A critique" Existenz (2011)
[43]
Haslam S. A. (2004)
[49]
Haslam S. A. (2012)

Showing 50 of 123 references

Metrics
32
Citations
123
References
Details
Published
Jul 30, 2019
Vol/Issue
13(8)
License
View
Funding
Australian Research Council Award: DE160100592
Cite This Article
S. Alexander Haslam, Catherine Haslam, Jolanda Jetten, et al. (2019). Group life shapes the psychology and biology of health: The case for a sociopsychobio model. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12490
Related

You May Also Like

An Introduction to Latent Class Growth Analysis and Growth Mixture Modeling

Tony Jung, K. A. S. Wickrama · 2007

2,561 citations

Mediation Analysis in Social Psychology: Current Practices and New Recommendations

Derek D. Rucker, Kristopher J. Preacher · 2011

1,817 citations

The Intention–Behavior Gap

Paschal Sheeran, Thomas L. Webb · 2016

1,571 citations

The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review

Adrian Furnham, Steven C. Richards · 2013

1,114 citations