Abnormal Psychology Flashcards
Normality
conformity to standard/regular behavioural patterns
abnormality
behaviour that doesn’t conform to regular patterns
using statistics to identify abnormality
interpretation of abnormal behaviour as behaviour that is statistically infrequent/uncommon
weaknesses of the interpretation of abnormality as statistically infrequent behaviour
- harder to be sure of the average when numbers aren’t involved (e.g. how much hunger is normal/abnormal?)
- we need to know more about a person before labelling their behaviour as normal/abnormal
- abnormality is often attributed to mental illness
- however, not all abnormalities is considered a sign of madness/disorder
- people with very low IQ are labeled with disorders, but people with very high IQ are respected and not stigmatised (although both are statistical abnormalities)
social norms vs statistics in identifying abnormal behavior
- social norms dictate proper behavioural responses to specific situations (e.g. it’s acceptable to talk loudly in a noisy cafe but not in a cinema)
- when social rules are violated, even if the violations are not statistically infrequent, it is considered abnormal
- people who deviate from social norms tend to be considered abnormal and will be attributed to mental illness
problems with defining abnormalities using social norms
- social norms vary across cultures
- Read et al. (2004) found a historical variation in abnormal behaviour: things that were considered mental illness symptoms are now acceptable in many cultures & situations
- social norms are largely determined by groups with social power (e.g. in many cultures it is considered abnormal for a woman to drink too much alcohol but it’s not abnormal for men)
using observations of maladaptiveness to identify abnormality
- assumption: all humans behave in a way beneficial to themselves (i.e. doesn’t interfere or enhances functioning)
- people are expected to develop understanding and conformity to social norms (regardless of agreement)
- maladaptive behaviour: behaviour that interferes with one’s ability to function within that social context, e.g. Internet addiction (people may be so hooked on the internet that their real relationships decay)
problem with associating maladaptiveness with abnormality
- sometimes people will engage in behavior detrimental to functioning
- this is not always because of a serious disorder
e. g. Guillermo Farinas, a political protestor, went on a hunger strike to protest against Internet censorship
using observations of suffering/distress to identify abnormality
- maybe one should inquire over another person’s health if they see maladaptive behavior
- however, this assumes the other person has the self-awareness to know they’re in distress
e. g. Irritability is a depression symptom that men often overlook as they don’t think it’s important - note that distress is a normal reaction to challenging life events (e.g. death of a loved one)
Jahoda’s positive mental health theory
- Marie Jahoda (1958) tried to define normality instead of abnormality
- she thought it would be easier to identify abnormal behavior as behavior that deviates from the definition of normality
the six components of Jahoda’s positive mental health theory
- positive self-schema
- growth and development
- fitting in well in society
- self-government/independence
- accurate perception of reality
- feeling in control of events in one’s life
This approach suggests that ideal mental health means an individual has:
- realistic and positive acceptance of self
- consistent resistance to stress
- the ability to take voluntary action to accentuate growth in their environment
problems with Jahoda’s positive mental health theory
- very few people actually fit in the six criteria
- Taylor and Brown (1988): depressed people have a more accurate perception of reality, and functioning adequately requires some extent of self-delusion
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
- describes disorders in clear terms to minimise differing interpretations (so different clinicians will likely reach the same diagnosis)
- groups disorders into categories and lists symptoms required for diagnosis of a particular disorder
- the disorders listed are not set in stone
- enforces multiaxial approach: a clinician should consider a potential patient’s symptoms, medical conditions, and social and environmental problems they may face
- this supports the idea that the origin of each person’s problem should be analysed via a bio-psycho-social framework
International Classification of Diseases (ICD)
- originally a means of standardising records of causes of death
- for classification rather than diagnosis
- contains wide range of diseases and conditions
- mental disorders section looks similar to DSM as the authoring teams consult each other
Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD)
- culture-specific: it focuses on issues related to Chinese culture
- disorders in ICD and DSM that aren’t common in China are left out
- some disorders in CCMD aren’t in ICD or DSM (as some are culture-bound)
e. g. Koro, an anxiety/depression disorder caused by a meditative exercise (Qigong)
ethical considerations of using diagnostic systems
- may not be reliable
- not valid to take a medical approach to psychological problems
- interpretations of symptoms may vary
e. g. in the Soviet Union, schizophrenia diagnoses were given far more liberally than in USA - ethnic minorities or women might not be treated equally like others in their diagnoses (psychologists may not make an effort to understand cultural differences, etc)
types of reliability tests
- inter-rater reliability
- test-retest reliability
inter-rater reliability
assessed by asking multiple practitioners to diagnose the same person with the same diagnostic system
test-retest reliability
asking a practitioner to diagnose a person more than once (e.g. on two different days)
Nicholls et al. (2000) AIM
to test the reliability of DSM, ICD, and the Great Ormond Street hospital’s diagnostic system using inter-rater reliability
Nicholls et al. (2000) PROCEDURE
- Two practitioners were asked to use ICD/DSM/GOS to diagnose 81 children
- The 81 children had complained of eating problems
Nicholls et al. (2000) RESULTS
Inter-rater reliability (rates of agreement between the two practitioners) of:
- DSM: 0.636
- ICD: 0.357
- GOS: 0.879
Nicholls et al. (2000) CONCLUSION
- GOS is most reliable
- possibly because GOS was specifically designed for children
- expected that with more children, more diagnoses would occur and agreement rates would increase
Nicholls et al. (2000) EVALUATION
- less than half of the children diagnosed using DSM could be diagnosed with a classified eating disorder, so rates of agreement for DSM could not be fully established
Seeman (2007) study
- literature review examining evidence related to diagnosis reliability
- found that initial schizophrenia diagnoses (especially concerning women) may change as clinicians found out more about their patients
- common for clinicians to discover that other conditions caused the symptoms leading to schizophrenia diagnoses
- indicates problem of test-retest reliability with schizophrenia diagnoses
key concern for diagnostic systems
whether they correctly diagnose people with disorders, and not give a diagnosis to healthy people
criticism of validity issues with the biomedical diagnostic process
- R.D. Laing: diagnosis is closer to being a social fact than a medical one, and is is full of financial, political, and legal implications
- diagnosis is not important to treatment
- Cosgrove et al. (2006): many advisors serving on DSM panels have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry
- Thomas Szasz: it’s wrong to label non-conforming behaviour as indicative of a mental disorder
- disorders are essentially labels given to a set of behaviours, emotions, and/or thoughts
- Wakefield et al. (2007): a wide range of other life events can account for depression symptoms and there is a lack of clarity about when depression symptoms really indicate a disorder
- Caetano (1973) study on Labelling Theory
- Rosenhan et al. (1973) study on the varying interpretations of normality
studies concerning reliability issues
- Nicholls et al. (2000) on inter-rater reliability of DSM, ICD, and GOS
- Seeman (2007) on how schizophrenia diagnoses can change as clinicians get to know their patients
Caetano (1973) aim
to demonstrate labelling theory during a diagnosis
labelling theory
- the theory that the behavior of the person being diagnosed isn’t the most important component of diagnosis
- once a diagnosis is made, it tends to stick
- any suggestion that the subject is mentally ill will be a powerful influence on any decision
supporting studies:
- Caetano (1973)
- Rosenhan et al. (1973)
Caetano (1973) procedure
- A male psychiatrist is videoed carrying out separate, standardised interviews with a university student and a mental patient
- 2 groups were shown the videos
- 77 psychology students
- 36 psychiatrists - The 2 groups were split into 2 subgroups that were given differing info:
- one was told that both were volunteers that were paid to participate
- the other was told both were mental patients - They were asked to diagnose the interviewees
Caetano (1973) findings
psychiatrists with clinical experience were more likely to be persuaded by the info given
Caetano (1973) conclusion
the study demonstrates labelling theory
Caetano (1973) evaluation
- the student could’ve had an undiagnosed psychiatric disorder
- the patient could’ve been close to normal (he had the appearance and attitude of a hippie on drugs)
Rosenhan et al. (1973) aim
to test the ability of diagnoses to tell the difference between normal people and people with disorders
Rosenhan et al. (1973) procedure
- Rosenhan and a group of colleagues and acquaintances went to 12 different hospitals complaining of hearing voices, but presenting their history and current state as normal
- They were admitted with a schizophrenia diagnosis
- On admission, they ceased complaining of any symptoms
- They eventually got out with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in remission
Rosenhan et al. (1973) findings
- their normality was never detected although descriptions from staff showed no evidence of abnormal behavior
- however, staff took all their normal behaviour in a negative light
- when taking notes about what happened in the hospital, hospital staff noted their writing was excessive and abnormal
- when walking along the corridors because they were bored, they were accused of obsessive pacing
- 35 of the 118 other patients expressed doubt to the pseudo-patients’ presences, suspecting they were checking on the hospital
Rosenhan et al. (1973) additional study
- found that abnormal people can be mistaken for normal
- Staff at another’s hospital claimed they wouldn’t have been fooled by the pseudo patients
- In response to Rosenhan’s invitation to estimate how many pseudopatients were sent by him to that hospital, staff estimated with confidence that 41 of 193 people admitted during that period were pseudopatients
- Rosenhan had sent none - all were genuine patients
criterion-related validity issues in diagnoses
- Gavin Andrews noted only moderate agreement in the diagnosis of anxiety disorders between DSM and ICD
- when a person can diagnosed according to one system but not in another by the same person, this indicates poor validity
- Peters et al. (1999) found only moderate agreement between DSM and ICD due to DSM listing distress/impairment to functioning as an anxiety symptom
implications of labelling theory
- if a patient’s condition improves, we won’t be convinced by the diagnosis of improvement
- the knowledge of a disorder diagnosis has negative effects on how society treats the person subsequently
social implications associated with a diagnosis
- although discrimination due to medical condition is illegal, ex-patients can still feel discouraged due to fear of discrimination
- Read (2007) found that people have bad attitudes to mental disorders because they associate disorders with dangerousness and unpredictability
- Sato (2006) notes that schizophrenia was renamed in Japan because the stigma was so bad that less than 40% of patients diagnosed with it were informed of the diagnosis
career implications associated with a diagnosis
- 92% of UK citizens would be afraid of admitting to a disorder diagnosis because they think it could damage their career
- more than half of the respondents to a survey stated they’d rather not hire someone with a mental disorder
implications of treatment for a disorder
- treatment after diagnosis may worsen/create symptoms
- iatrogenesis may occur
- conditions in the institutions may be cruel and dehumanising, in a way that makes returning to society hard
e.g. a depression diagnosis may cause the person to take time off work -> finds it hard to reintegrate upon returning -> loses their job -> spiral into further depression
iatrogenesis
- phenomenon in which treatment for a condition causes other complications
- adaptation to life in an institution may cause development of new behaviours
- Rosenhan et al. (1973) observed during their stay at institutions that social interactions were lacking in care and concern
cultural bias in treatment
- Read et al. (2004): migrants and ethnic minorities in Western countries are over-represented in mental institutions
- diagnostic biases occur and psychiatry uses diagnosis and institutionalisation instead of trying to understand differences
- Morgan et al. (2006): in the UK, incidence of schizophrenia is 9x higher for Afro-Caribbeans and 6x higher for Africans than for Caucasians
gender bias in diagnosis
- diagnostic criteria for depression is a description of normal female responses to social pressure
- so women are more likely to be diagnosed with depression