In this article, we consider how certain types of contemporary biosocial psychiatric research conceptualise and explicate biology-social relations. We compare the historic biopsychosocial model to recent examples of social defeat research on schizophrenia and cultural neuroscience work on affective disorders. This comparison reveals how the contemporary turn towards the ‘biosocial’ within psychiatric research relies upon ideas of the psychological as an interface. This is problematic because psychological notions of ‘experience’ are used as the central mechanics of biosocial processes, but lack any meaningful engagement with considerable debates within psychology and cognitive science about what the mind, and indeed the psychological, actually is, its relationship to social life, and how we should study it. The psychological interface is therefore vital to these biosocial hypotheses but is remarkably underdeveloped in comparison to its biological and sociological components. We argue that biosocial psychiatric research could gain a great deal from engaging with contemporary theorisations of experience and being more critical of vague appeals to psychological phenomena.

在本文中，我们考虑某些类型的当代生物社会精神病学研究如何概念化和解释生物-社会关系。我们将历史性的生物心理社会模型与最近关于精神分裂症的社会失败研究和关于情感障碍的文化神经科学工作的例子进行了比较。这种比较揭示了当代在精神病学研究中转向“生物社会”是如何依赖于将心理作为界面的想法。这是有问题的，因为“经验”的心理学概念被用作生物社会过程的中心机制，但缺乏任何有意义的参与心理学和认知科学中关于心智，实际上是心理，实际上是什么，它与社会的关系的大量辩论。生活，以及我们应该如何研究它。因此，心理界面对这些生物社会假设至关重要，但与其生物学和社会学成分相比，它的发展明显不足。我们认为，生物社会精神病学研究可以从参与当代经验理论中获得很多好处，并且更加批评对心理现象的模糊诉求。