PsychoPathology Flashcards
Defining abnormalities: Outline deviation from social norms
Abnormalities= behaviour/characteristics that’s uncommon/unusual (crucial we define abnormalities b4 finding reason for it or even treat it)
DSM( The diagnostic n statistical manual of mental disorders) lists every known disorders and it’s characteristics to help clinicians diagnose mental illnesses. other way of diagnosing abnormalities is:
-
Deviation from social norms- behaviour that doesn’t conform to accepted/expected standards = abnormal
eg adult eating bogeys, something children do and it’s unhygienic
Defining abnormalities: evaluate deviation from social norms
- Who defines what’s normal? Norms aren’t always universally accepted
eg bw social classes there’s different rules of behaviour so a patient will b judged subjectively according to person diagnosing them.
Means deviation from social norms too subjective n susceptible to abuse (norms of dominant grp may -> subordinate grp being labelled mentally ill for not conforming)
Szasz 1974 claimed concept of mental illness j way society used to excuse non-conformists eg Russia, 50yrs ago, any1 that disagreed w state had risk of being put in mental institute -
lacks Temporal validity- norms change over time eg homosexuals regarded as mentally ill in 1970s but now it’s normal.
means deviation from social norms is time-specific, ever-changing and only reflects morals of the time so limits usefulness -
Cultural relativism- norms differ across cultures
eg talking to spirits desirable in some cultures n done by high rank ppl but in the west this’d be abnormal.
Cultural relativism is acknowledged by DSM so ‘culture-bound’ syndromes also been included- shows no universal way of defining norms so there’s no universal standard in defining abnormality using deviation from social norms
defining abnormalities: outline statistical infrequency
looking at stats n finding average (mean,median,mode) of likelihood of behaviour occurring. Anything on the extreme ends of a normal distribution curve is considered abnormal
eg
•OCD is a rare disorder to have so anyone w it is abnormal
•in UK, average age to have baby is 25-30 so anything slightly more/less in realms of norm.
A baby at age of 10 or 60 would be abnormal. As age increases or decreases this is increasingly abnormal
Defining abnormalities: evaluate statistical infrequency
-
Abnormal stat not always bad
eg scoring 150 in IQ test would be considered abnormal as not many score this high but is desirable trait not deviant, so we don’t consider these ppl abnormal -
undesirable trait maybe norm but unhealthy
eg depression so common now anyone without it could be said to be statistically abnormal
so, this is extreme n limited way of defining abnormalities for mental health -
labelling someone that’s statistically infrequent characteristics may cause issues
eg someone w low IQ isn’t suffering but labelling them abnormal could affect them so label is bad not abnormality
Defining abnormalities: outline failure to function adequately (FFA)
abnormal behaviour causing someone distress n inability to cope w everyday life (includes bizarre/unpredictable behaviour-can include behaviour distressing to others too)
eg
•someone w ocd maybe late to school because they’re constantly ironing their clothes for no creases
failing to get outta bed in morning is bad for someone who gotta be at skl so can distress parents so therefore considered abnormal if done often
defining abnormalities: evaluate FFA
-
involves judgments about what’s adequate
eg may think wearing sandals to class fine but parents think ‘inadequate’ footwear.
suin may vio a person’s moral standards but be acceptable for others - this lack of objectivity makes it hard to use to judge abnormality -
Cultural relativism where aspects of 1’s social class/ethnicity being judged as inadequate
eg psychiatrists often white middle class n use their standard n culture to judge others-could explain y so many working class ppl judged as mentally ill asw as a much higher proportion being black than expected -
Individual differences- 2ppl may’ve same mental illness but cope differently eg 2 OCD p(s) checking locks before leaving 50x. 1 late to work cos of it n other gets up earlier to check so on time.
Highlights importance of individual differences so nomothetic approach involving tickbox method not appropriate to identify abnormal behaviour- idiographic considering individual differences = better to identify abnormal behaviour
Defining abnormalities: outline deviation from mental health
Jahoda proposed 6 key criteria for ideal mental health instead of focussing on criteria for abnormalities:
- pos attitude to self
- personal growth
- resistance to stress
- personal autonomy
- accurate perception of reality
- adapting to env
felt deviating from these means person vulnerable to mental disorders n classified as abnormal
eg student that has exams but can’t motivate themselves to revise
Defining abnormalities: evaluate deviation from mental health
-
Refreshing- focus on pos behaviour over neg. definition takes holistic view bcz focuses on diff aspects of person’s experiences affecting mental health
May’ve pos effect on patients to use pos checklist over neg-may feel better mentally to c they satisfy so many pos criteria and if things lacking, may feel motivation to work on them
when seeking neg behaviour, danger psychiatrists may c behaviour that’s not there (observer bias). highlighting neg behaviour to patient may make em feel worse n run mental health further so his explanation maybe useful in defining abnormalities -
unrealistic criteria- judging ppl on these would render every1 abnormal. standards too high n anyone judging themselves/others risk creating anxiety in person as they’d feel insufficient
Doesn’t consider neg emotions from an event eg death of loved one where neg emotions normal so enviromental triggers must be considered -
cultural relativism- criteria based on individualistic culture not collectivist where personal sacrifice/working to common good maybe more important
means someone in collectivist that don’t possess personal autonomy would be abnormal so definitions can’t be universally applied
Phobia traits
Phobia= type of anxiety disorder
eg Johnny Depp- coulrophobia (clowns)
• specific phobia- objects, situs, animals
• Agoraphobia- open space/public/not being home
• Social phobia- social situs bcz of possibility can be judged
- behavioural characteristics: avoidance (lot of effort to avoid fear eg claustrophobic ppl avoid lifts)
some phobias interferes w daily life. may freeze/faint bcz of wrong activation of fight/flight response - Cog characteristics: irrational thinking
eg fear of planes bcz think crash n die. resistant to rational thoughts eg stats show how unlikely crash doesn’t make em feel better - Emotional characteristics: panic/anxiety. fear is excessive n persistent
outline the behaviourist approach to phobias
Behaviourists believe phobias r learnt same way behaviours r learnt.
Mowrer 1947 proposed two-process model:
1) classical conditioning: learned by association. claims phobia learnt w a stimulus being associated w bad experience
eg person has no fear of dogs (neutral stimulus)
SUPPORT: Watson n Rayner 1920:
Lil Albert-11month old w no phobias.
Given white rat (neutral stimulus) to play w and whilst playing w it, metal bar was struck loudly-cried.
Noise= unconditioned stimulus
Fear= unconditioned response
this was repeated few times.
When given white rat, cried even w no noise
Rat= conditioned stimulus
fear= conditioned response
fear extended to all white fluffy objects even Santa’s beard
Behaviourists believe this how all phobias learnt
2) operant conditioning: phobia maintained thru this-This is where behaviour is learnt by rewards and reinforcement.
Neg reinforcement= unpleasant consequence avoided
eg child brushes teeth to not go dentist. Avoiding dentist is the neg reinforcer which encourages behaviour of stimulus.
In the case of phobias, p(s) find way to avoid phobic stimulus to decrease chance of experiencing fear and is therefore neg reinforcer
Neg reinforcement is achieved via avoidance so the phobias maintained
evaluate the behaviourist approach to phobias
-
Sue et al 1934 found ppl w agaraphobia recall sudden panic attacks in public
suggests classical conditioning can explain phobias - But, this not always case as many ppl w phobias recall no traumatic event where classical conditioning occurred so there must be other explanations too
If phobias learnt we’d expect more ppl to be afraid of common things eg cars cause more damage than suin like spiders which r v unlikely to harm, but this isn’t the case -
implies phobias can b unlearnt leading to practical applications in treatment eg systematic desensitisation (gradual exposure to phobia paired w relaxation to remove fear and associate it w positivity
or flooding (p flooded w feared stimulus till they realise there’s no harm in it)
both have been used n effective w p(s) so supports learning theory -
enviromental reductionism and ignores cog factors that maybe involved in developing and maintaining phobia- irrational thoughts
eg someone scared of lifts thinks they’ll get trapped n suffocate to death
support for cog view is from CBT- v effective in dealing w phobias
Engels 1993 found ppl w agaraphobia were helped more w CBT than j taking behavioural therapy so it weakens 2-process model explanation
Would be wise to acknowledge some phobias r learnt n some r cog/evo
outline methods of treating phobias: Systematic desensitisation (SD)
Behaviourists believe if phobias are learnt they can be unlearnt
Systematic desensitisation
developed by Wolpe
SD= form of classical conditioning-counter conditioning used where phobias removed by associating fear w relaxation response
p(s) gradually exposed to whilst experiencing relaxation bcz of idea that they’re incompatible (reciprocal inhibiton) and so the fear’s dispelled.
- p learns relaxation techniques from therapist eg breathing exercises
- desensitisation/anxiety hierarchy made by p n therapist
eg imagine phobia then situ gets harder to handle till ready to face phobia
eg imagine in same room as spider then reaching for it but not touching then holding it - once hierarchicy agreed, p works thru it using relaxation techniques so now new association of phobia is w relaxation. Once each stage is mastered, phobia should be gone
evaluate treating phobias: SD
- SUPPORT:
McGrath et al 1998 found 75% p responded well to it esp w vivo technique (exposed to acc object) rather than vitro (imagining)
Capatons et al 1998 reported p(s) w fear of flying less scared after SD compared to control grp that didn’t have
so research supports effectiveness on p(s) w phobias - SUPPORT:
less therapy/self-administer
v important as therapy demand increased since COVID so burdens eco and NHS
so any therapy that can be self-administered valuable
Al Khubaisy et al 1992 compared p(s) that went thru SD self-administered n w therapist n found same success rates
suggests SD has important role in treating phobias - AGAINST:
Ohman et al 1975 says SD not effective w p(s) w phobias of evolutionary survival components eg darkness
since it don’t originate from traumatic event suggests SD would b less effective as learning theory suggests it had to be learnt from classical conditioning to begin w
so evo phobias maybe better to have other treatment eg CBT
Outline treatments of phobias: Flooding
1 v long sesh w extreme exposure of phobia paired w relaxation-urged by therapist till anxiety disappears
eg p w fear of clowns taken to room w them till they’re know they’re harmless n phobias extinguished
As they can’t avoid, neg reinforcement can’t occur so phobia not maintained
evaluate treatments of phobias: Flooding
- SUPPORT:
good for eco as 1 or few sesh needed eg CBT strains finances
Flooding more effective on those who complete it
Choy et al 2007 found SD n flooding effective but flooding more
better for p as phobia removed faster - AGAINST:
can b v traumatic n hella p don’t finish treatment
treatment can b seen as unethical tho consents likely to b obtained-p gotta be fully prepd for exposure bcz possible they’ll undergo psych harm
Wolpe 1969 recalled p hospitalised due to extreme anxiety undergone shows it’s not suitable for every1 or all phobias
