Psychopathology Flashcards
The definitions for abnormality are:
Statistical infrequency
Deviation from social norms
Failure to function adequately
Deviation from ideal mental health
Statistical Infrequency
Statistical infrequency defines abnormality in terms of behaviours seen as statistically rare or which deviate from the mean average or norm.
Statistics that measure certain characteristics and behaviours are gathered with the aim of showing how they are distributed among the general population.
Normal Distribution Curve
A normal distribution curve can be generated from such data which demonstrates which behaviours people share in common. Most people will be on or near the mean average however individuals which fall outside this “normal distribution” and two standard deviation points away are defined as abnormal.
Where do the majority of normal behaviours cluster?
The majority of normal behaviours cluster in the middle of the distribution graph with abnormal characteristics around the edges or tails making them statistically rare and therefore a deviation from statistical norms.
Statistical Infrequency - Appropriate Measure
Defining abnormality using statistical criteria can be appropriate in many situations; for example in the definition of mental retardation or intellectual ability.
In such cases normal mental ability can be effectively measured with anyone whose IQ falling more than two standard deviation points than most the general population being judged as having some mental disorder.
When used in conjunction with other definitions such as the failure to function adequately, statistical infrequency provides an appropriate measure for abnormality.
Statistical Infrequency - Characteristics
A weakness, however, is in other occasions defining peoples characteristics on statistical rarity solely is unsuitable.
For example, people with exceptionally high IQ’s could, in theory, be diagnosed as having a mental disorder as their intelligence may be two deviations above the rest of the population and technically “abnormal”. This is why statistical infrequency is best used in conjunction with other tools to define abnormality.
Statistical Infrequency - Objective
Statistical infrequency provides an objective measure for abnormality.
Once a way of collecting data on behaviour/characteristics and a cut-off point is agreed, this provides an objective way of deciding who is abnormal.
However, a weakness here is that the cut-off point is subjectively determined as we need to decide where to separate normal behaviour from abnormal and again this blurs the line in some cases.
Statistical Infrequency - Imposed Etic
A major weakness is that statistical infrequency has an imposed etic of whatever culture is measuring the behaviour, usually western cultures and therefore suffers from cultural bias.
It does not consider cultural factors in determining abnormal behaviour and what is a normal behaviour in one culture may be seen as abnormal in another due to its infrequency.
Also, behaviours which were statistically rare many years ago may not be rare now (and vice versa).
Therefore this tool could run the risk of being era-dependent by adopting a statistical norm based on behaviours that may later become outdated.
Deviation from Social Norms
Deviation from social norms defines abnormality in terms of social norms and expected behaviours within society and certain situations.
Within society there are standards of acceptable behaviour which are set by the social group and everyone within this social group is expected to follow these behaviours.
Social Norms
Social norms can be explicit written rules or even laws and an example of this is the respect for human life and property which belongs to others.
These are norms enforced by a legal system within the UK however other social norms are unwritten but still generally accepted as normal behaviour.
Social Norms - Temporal Validity
One major issue with basing abnormal behaviour on a set of social norms is that they are subject to change over time. Behaviour that is socially acceptable now may suddenly be seen as socially deviant later and vice versa. Therefore this definition is very era-dependent.
Social Norms - Open to Abuse
Another issue is this form of diagnosis is open to abuse. In Russia, during the late 1950s, anyone who disagreed with the government ran the risk of being diagnosed as insane and placed in a mental institution.
Therefore defining people based on a deviation from socially acceptable behaviour allows people to be persecuted for being non-conformist
Social Norms - Context Dependent
There is no clear distinction on where this divide between normal and abnormal is as such behaviour may simply be eccentric but not due to any mental disorders.
Therefore social deviance on its own cannot offer a holistic definition of abnormal behaviour.
Social Norms - Provide Help
A strength of using deviations from social norms to define abnormality is it can if used correctly, help people as it gives society the right to intervene to improve the lives of people suffering from mental disorders who may not be able to help themselves.
This definition also helps protect members of society itself as a deviation from norms usually comes at the expense of others as social norms are usually designed to keep society functioning adequately.
Social Norms - Cultural Bias
Deviation from social norms is subject to cultural bias.
For example, western social norms reflect the majority of the white western population and ethnic groups which behave differently could be seen as “abnormal” simply because their customs or behaviours are based on eastern or European values
Failure to Function
Defining abnormality on the basis of failure to function adequately takes to account a persons ability to cope with the daily demands of life.
Functioning Affecting Lives
This inability to cope may cause the individual or others around them distress and this is factored into this definition as some people with mental disorders may themselves not be distressed but cause it to those around them.
Rosenhan’s Criteria for Abnormality
Observer Discomfort
Irrationality
Maladaptive Behaviours
Unpredictability
Personal Distress
FTF - Subjective
One weakness with this definition is it needs someone to judge whether the behaviour someone displays is abnormal or not and this may be subjective.
A patient experiencing personal distress through being unable to meet their bills or get to work may be judged as abnormal by one judge while another individual may see this as one of the many pitfalls of adult life.
This definition creates ideal expectations which many people may struggle to adhere to and risk being classed as abnormal.
FTF - Personal
A strength of this definition, however, is it does recognise the subjective experience of the individual themselves who may be struggling to function adequately and wish to seek intervention.
This definition takes a patient-centred view by allowing mental disorders to be regarded from the perception of sufferers.
FTF - Cultural Bias
Such a definition suffers from cultural bias as it will inevitably be related to how one culture believes an individual should live their lives.
Basing abnormality on the basis of failing to function is likely to lead to different diagnoses when applied to people from different cultures or even socio-economic classes.
FTF - Obvious or Not?
In other cases, the abnormality may not always be followed by observable dysfunctional traits.
For example, psychopaths and people with dangerous personality disorders can cause great harm to others yet still appear normal.
Deviation from Ideal Mental Health
Deviation from ideal mental health assesses abnormality by assessing mental health in the same way physical health would be assessed.
This definition looks for signs that suggest there is an absence of wellbeing and deviation away from normal functioning would be classed as abnormal.
Jahoda’s Criteria
Positive Self Attitude
Self-actualisation
Autonomy
Accurate Perception of Reality
Resisting Stress
Environmental Mastery
DFIMH - Unrealistic
The criteria for being classed as normal are over-demanding and unrealistic which is a major criticism of this definition.
By Jahoda’s standard, most people would be classed as abnormal as they fail to meet these requirements which means this diagnosis is more a set of ideals on how you would like to be rather than how you actually are.
DFIMH - Vague
The criteria Jahoda puts forth are subjective and difficult to measure due to being vague.
Measuring physical health is more objective through the use of equipment however mental health through these criteria is difficult to measure.
For example, measuring self-esteem, personal growth or environmental mastery would all be difficult and require a subjective opinion on where the cut-off point would be.
DFIMH - Western
This definition would be culturally biased as these set of ideals put forth by Jahoda are based on western ideals of what ideal health looks like within one particular culture.
If this was used to judge the behaviour of people from different cultures then this may provide an incorrect diagnosis of abnormality as they have different beliefs on what “ideal mental health” would look like.
Emotional Characteristics of Phobias
Anxiety
Unreasonable Emotional Response
Behavioural Characteristics of Phobias
Panic
Avoidance
Endurance
Cognitive Characteristics of Phobias
Selective Attention on Phobic Stimulus
Irrational Beliefs
Cognitive Distortions
Emotional Characteristics of Depression
Lowered Mood
Anger
Lowered Self-esteem
Behavioural Characteristics of Depression
Activity Levels
Disruption to Eat and Sleep Habits
Aggression and Self Harm
Emotional Characteristics of OCD
Anxiety and Distress
Accompanying Depression
Guilt and Disgust
Behavioural Characteristics of OCD
Compulsions
Avoidance
Cognitive Characteristics of OCD
Obsessive Thoughts
Cognitive Coping Strategies
Insight into Excessive Anxiety
Mowrer - 1947
Mowrer (1947) proposed the two-process model which attempts to explain phobias through the behaviourist explanation of either classical or operant conditioning.
Behaviourists
Behaviourists propose phobias are learned through experience and association and through classical conditioning phobias are acquired by a stimulus becoming associated with a negative outcome.
Watson and Rayner - Little Albert
A child was in introduced to a loud noise (unconditioned stimulus) which produced the fear response (unconditioned response).
A white rat (neutral stimulus) was introduced and paired with this loud noise which over time became paired with the fear response towards this white rat (conditioned response).
The rat then becomes a conditioned stimulus as it produces the conditioned response of fear.
Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning
Traumatic events that occur produce negative feelings which then become conditioned responses to such objects, animals or situations which are conditioned stimuli.
Phobias are then maintained by operant conditioning which explains why people continue to remain fearful or avoid the object or situation in question.
Positive Reinforcement
This proposes that behaviour is likely to be repeated if the outcome is rewarding in some way.
Negative Reinforcement
If the behaviour results in the avoidance of something unpleasant, this is known as negative reinforcement.
In the case of phobias and through negative reinforcement; the avoidance of the object/situation in question reduces anxiety or fear which the individual finds rewarding.
This then reinforces the avoidance behaviour further.
Further Behavioural Explanations
Another behavioural explanation is social learning theory and this explains phobias as having been acquired through modelling behaviours observed from others.
An individual may see a phobic response and emulate the reaction as it appears rewarding in some form i.e. attention.
Mowrer - Traumatic Event or Not?
The two-process model is generally supported through phobia sufferers being able to recall a traumatic or specific event which triggers it.
Not everyone who suffers a traumatic event then goes on to develop a phobia.
This suggests the two-process model is overly simplistic and not a holistic explanation as other factors must be at work.
However, a weakness is not everyone is able to link their phobia to a specific event they can recall.
Mowrer - Bagby Research Support
A case study by Bagby (1922) lends support for classical conditioning explaining her phobia of running water which caused her extreme distress.
The sound of running water had become associated with the fear and distress she experienced demonstrating how the two-process model has validity in some explanations of phobias.
Mowrer - Generalisability
However, with single case studies, we may not necessarily be able to generalise the findings to the wider population as the circumstances for that phobia developing may lack external validity to other peoples conditions.
In addition to this such case studies are time-consuming and almost impossible to replicate to test the reliability of findings to confirm they occurred as patients may describe.
Mowrer - Rachman’s Safety
Rachman 1984) offered an alternative view through the Safety signals hypothesis which undermines the two-process model.
This proposed that avoidance behaviour towards the object/animal in question is not motivated by negative reinforcement and the reduction in anxiety as the two-process model proposes but by the positive feelings the person associates with safety.
