Cited by 163Mental Health and PsychiatrySchizophrenia research and treatmentMedicine, History, and Philosophy

Expanding the domain of the understandable in psychiatric illness: an updating of the Jasperian framework of explanation and understanding

Open access
Kendler, K. S., Campbell, J.·2014·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Jaspers famously argued that psychiatry has two distinct ways of knowing about psychiatric illness: explanation – which utilizes natural sciences, and objective and empirical methods; and understanding – which reflects our subjective, empathic appreciation of our patients' experiences. He saw a clear division between these two approaches and considered a number of psychotic symptoms to be fundamentally un-understandable. We here argue for an updating of Jasper's view that includes the possibility, due to advances in neuroscience and neuropsychology, for explanation-aided understanding. We describe two scientific explanatory models for kinds of psychotic symptoms deemed un-understandable by Jaspers that illustrate this process. The first describes how dysfunction of the brain dopamine salience system may produce ideas of reference. The second demonstrates that symptoms of made-actions may be caused by abnormalities in the feed-forward motor control system. Both of these models begin at a biological level describing pathological brain processes in neuroscience language but then utilize neuropsychology to ‘translate’ from brain dysfunction into the mental. Both models break down the pathological pathways into individual subjective elements (particularly misattributing meaning to environmental stimuli and having body parts moved by others) that are understandable because they are common to nearly all of us. The neuropsychology provides hypotheses about the functional and physiological structures underlying familiar subjective experiences. Analyses of disorders of those structures thus provide a scaffold for expanding our empathic understanding of the subjective experiences of those suffering from psychiatric illness.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291712003030

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nagel T (1979). Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press : New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kendler, K. S., & Campbell, J.
Affiliations
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Kendler, K. S.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2013-01-24
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
1-7
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2140110439
Cited by
163
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
Keywords
jasper, explanation and understanding, psychotic symptoms, ideas of reference, neuropsychology, empathic understanding, subjective experience
MeSH terms
Brain, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Psychiatry, Psychotic Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review