psychopathology Flashcards
what are the 4 definitions of abnormality
deviation from social norms
failure to function adequately
statistical infrequency
deviation from ideal mental health
describe deviation from social norms
social norms are a set of unwritten rules for behaviour based on a set of moral and conventional standards within a culture
a persons thinking or behaviour is classified as abnormal if it violates the rules about what is expected or acceptable behaviour in a particular social group
it is judged by socially rather than one person and is important to consider;
the degree to which a social norm is violated, the context in which behaviour occurs (e.g. wearing a bikini at a beach is normal but wearing bikini in class isn’t), the culture, and the importance of the normal and the value attached by the social group to different sorts of violation.
evaluate deviation from social norms
👎criticism: susceptibility to abuse for example, Muslims in china are deemed abnormal by the Chinese government and put into re-education camps. this is the same as homosexuality in victorian times. This questions whether is accurately identifies abnormality that needs treatment or if it’s a way of governments justifying societal prejudice. Therefore, defining abnormality is a way to exclude non-conforming people to society, e.g. Muslims and homosexuals. However, it does differentiate between those that are normal and abnormal unlike DIMH.
👎criticism: culturally relative
it’s dependent upon the culture. it is based on white and western cultures but generalises to other cultures. Therefore, someone is deemed abnormal dependent upon the culture that they live in rather than whether it causes a privilege. like FTF does. surely if a behaviour was abnormal then it would be abnormal no matter where in the world they live
👎criticism: depends upon the context and degree of the DNS
for example, wearing a swimming consume on the beach is normal, but wearing it in a classroom is abnormal. If abnormal, it should be abnormal irrespective of the context or degree of the behaviours therefore, defining abnormality in this way is subjective.
However, even objective definitions such as statistical infrequency has subjective judgments. e.g. where is the cut off for abnormality, 1%? 5%?, 10%?. all definitions have a subjectivity issue.
describe failure to function adequately
a person is considered to be abnormal if they are unable to cope with the demands of everyday life
Rosenhan and Seligman suggest several criteria for failing to function;
- suffering and personal distress
- inability to keep basic standards of hygiene and nutrition
-irrational beliefs - impulsive and dangerous behaviour
- inability to cope with new situations, and cope at work.
evaluate failure to function adequately
👎criticism: who defines what he abnormal?
someone is deciding what functioning is, making it very subjective and it is effected by class and ethnicity.
this is a criticism we individuals will receive different diagnoses of abnormality, e.g. men are more likely to be diagnosed with Schizophrenia whereas women are more depression. males not functioning seems more serious than if a woman was not to.
This can be more susceptible to abuse as it may not correctly diagnose someone as it may be a certain behaviour that the psychologist doesn’t like and therefore seems it to not be functioning’s whereas statistical infrequency is based off data and therefore isn’t susceptible to abuse.
👎criticism: what is defined as functioning or not functioning
What the individual deems as functioning may be different to the psychologist, e.g self harm.
This is a criticism of FTF as self harm could be functional to the individual, but seems not functional causing observer discomfort. Stopping this behaviour may lead to more serious consequences. This means that coping strategies like self harm could actually be benediction to stopping the personal committing suicide and therefore is functional.
However, FTF can be utilised by having more than one psychologist decide abnormality decreasing bias within the use of the definition.
👍strength: considers the persons subjective experience
The definition allows us to view the mental disorder from the view of the person with it. How the behaviour is affecting everyday life, therefore this is unique to the individual.
This is a strength as the definition isn’t overgeneralising abnormality to all people with this same behaviour, unlike DSN. It is basing abnormality on whether the behaviour is adaptive or not to the individual.
However, this is looking at the behaviour from a negative perspective, whereas DIMH has a more positive outlook on behaviour and looks to see what the personal does do well.
define statistical infrequency
this definition looks at the number of people within a population who have a particular trait or behaviour.
Any relatively unusual trait usually trait or behaviour can be seen as normal and any behaviour that is rare or statistically unusual is classified as abnormal.
This can be measured by using a normal distribution graph.
evaluate statistical infrequency
👍strength: Objective as it is based on statistical data
Uses normal distribution and used significance to define abnormality - e.g. 1%, 5% or 10.% significantly difference from the normal population.
This eliminated conscious bias or human error. Less subjective. more reliable definition of abnormality (can be applied consistently to all people)
However, it still requires a judgement of whether to use 1%, 5% or 10% as a cut off for being abnormal.
👎criticism: does not distinguish between function being abnormal or not
Would consider a high IQ as abnormal as a low IQ.
Therefore, it doesn’t distinguish whether the infrequency is an undesirable or desirable characteristic. Woukd assume both high and low IQ needs treatment.
However, it does distinguish the difference between normal and abnormal and is an objective judgements so is better than DIMH.
👎criticism: culturally relative
It depends on which normal population to on data that is being used. the normal distribution is culturally specific, e.g. IQ is a Western test and normals in USA population.
Abnormality is not defined universally my so may be invalid to define as abnormal from another culture.
However, if can ensure gather normal population data from every culture and define abnormality within the culture that the data is bothered from.
evaluate deviation from ideal mental health
👍strength: positive approach to defining abnormality
looks at defining what’s desirable rather than undesirable - she accepted that the person is in control of working on themselves to develop in the 6 categories. This is because she defines normality and not abnormality. It compares people against what it is to be normal and if it doesn’t meet the criteria, then it’s abnormal.
However, it doesn’t state how many of the criteria you need to be considered normal. therefore, a vague definition of abnormality unlike FTF.
👎criticism: DIMH criteria is unrealistic
The criteria is hard to measure as it’s vague - e.g. self-actualisation and accurate perception of reality. This suggests that DIMH isn’t an effective definition of abnormality. everyone would be classed as abnormal as it’s too hard for anyone to meet all the criteria. Therefore, not useful in defining abnormality as no distinct between normality and abnormality.
However, it’s a positive approach as is humanistic and views everyone as unique and we all need help (no such thing as normality)
👎criticism: compares physical illness to a mental illness
Physical health is observable and can be measured objectively. Mental health cannot be directly observed or measured. The criteria for DIMH isn’t observable or easily measurable, e.g. self-actualisation or self-esteem.
However, this is a criticism relevant to all definitions of abnormality. just the same as all definitions are culturally relative (e.g. Jahoda seems independence to be ideal, however this is not the case in collectivist cultures)
define a phobia
a phobia is a persistent, extreme and irrational fear of a specific object or situation which disrupts everyday life.
what are the 3 types of phobias
Specific
social
agoraphobia
what are specific phobias?
A fear and avoidance of a particular object or situation.
what are social phobias?
fear of humiliation/ embarrassment or fear of being judged in social situations.
what is Agoraphobia?
Fear of being outside in a public place.
what are the behavioural characteristics of phobias?
panic - activates fight or flight response ( e.g. crying, screaming, running away, freezing)
Avoidance
Endurance - unable to escape, increases levels of anxiety.
what are the emotional characteristics of phobias?
anxiety - feelings of worry/distress
often are unreasonable
