Psychopathology AO3 Flashcards
AO3 Statistical infrequency
Strengths
-Clear cut off point= Clear to determine abnormality/ who needs support
-Quantitative data= easier to analyse
Limitations
-Cut off point is too specific= fine line between who qualifies for support and who doesn’t (E.G IQ of 71= miss out on support )
-Doesn’t account for all disorders- some are statistically common (E.G depression= 1 in 6, anxiety= 1 in 5)
-Doesn’t distinguish between a desirable abnormality and an undesirable abnormality (E.G high IQ is just as rare as low)
AO3 Deviation from social norms
Strengths
-Helps to identify antisocial behaviour that is dangerous or breaks the law
Limitations
-Hindsight bias- social norms change over time. This is a problem as it means that some social groups have been discriminated against and suffered social exclusion as a result of social norms at the time
-Cultural bias- The tendency to judge people based off of ones own cultural assumptions
DSM= published by an American psychologist -westernised.
(E.G, auditory hallucinations is more acceptable in African cultures due to the belief that it is associated with communicating with ancestors, however, in westernised countries, this would possible be diagnosed as Schizophrenia)
AO3 failure to function adequately
Strengths
-Represents a sensible threshold to identify who needs support
Limitations
-Cultural bias
-Personal lifestyles
= subjective E.G backpacking often means that you may have a poor level of hygiene during the time.
-Not all mental illnesses portray a visible inability to cope that can be identified E.G anxieties, ADHD, autism (particularly with girls as Cotton found)
AO3 Deviation from ideal mental health
Strengths
-Only definition that looks for ‘positives’ not negatives
Limitations
-Unrealistic
-Too subjective, difficult to measure
-Cultural bias
AO3 Behavioural explanation of phobias- Two Process model
Strengths
-The two process model has good practical application (explanatory power)
-The two process model can provide convincing explanations of why people acquire and maintain phobias.
-E.G Many people who have phobias remember a traumatic event where the phobia was acquired
-This allows us to understand how to treat the disorder
(E.G through systematic desensitisation or flooding (these exposure the sufferer to their phobic stimulus )
Limitations
-The diathesis-stress model
Suggests that we must inherit a genetic vulnerability for mental disorders (This makes some people more likely to learn phobias than others)
E.G, Phobias aren’t always learnt following a traumatic event- not everybody, who has been in a car crash is fearful of cars
This suggests that conditioning alone is not enough to explain how phobias are acquired- genetics should also be taken into account
-cognitive explanations
For example, the cognitive approach suggests that phobias may develop as a consequence of irrational thinking, such as ‘ I will die if I see a spider’
This is a limitation because other treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy may be used alongside or as an alternative explanation if the phobia stemmed from cognitive factors
-Biological preparedness
Doesn’t consider other explanations for the cause of phobias, such as biological preparedness.
Seligman (1970) argues that phobias don’t have to be learnt, as humans/ animals are genetically pre programmed to form an association between life threatening stimuli and fear
For example, we naturally fear things that would cause danger in our evolutionary past (strangers, spiders, heights) and not modern day appliances, this is called biological pre preparedness
This suggests that the two process model is not as simple as conditioning
AO3 Flooding
Strengths
-More cost effective as it only requires one 2-3 hour session to achieve results (NHS overstretched and underfunded = more useful)
-Highly effective for simple phobias (specific phobias)
Limitations
–Highly traumatic as the exposure is immediate. E.G Wolpe (1969) recalled a case with a person becoming so intensely anxious that she had to be hospitalised.
-High attrition rates (drop out) because experience is too stressful = waste of time and money as treatment has not been fully complete
-Only works for treatments of a Behavioural nature. Not as effective for cognitive or biological, which tend to be more complex. E.G social anxiety and agoraphobia. Social phobias = cause of irrational thinking
-Symptom substitution
-Less appropriate for children
AO3 Systematic desensitisation
Strengths
-Less traumatic as it is gradual exposure and the individual only encounters the phobic stimulus when in a relaxed state = lower attrition rates
-Very effective for treating specific phobias E.G McGrath et al (1990) 75% of patients with phobias were successfully treated with systematic desensitisation, especially when using in vivo techniques.
-More accessible and appropriate for children
Limitations
-Not as effective for phobias with a biological or cognitive nature E.G biological preparedness
-More costly as it requires atleast 3x 45 minute sessions= more time
AO3 Cognitive explanations of depression
One strength is that the role of irrational thinking in the development of depression is supported by research. For example, Hammen and Krantz found that depressed participants made more errors in logic when asked to interpret written material than non depressed participants. Additionally, Bates found that depressed participants who were given negative automatic thought statements became more and more depressed. Therefore, this research supports the view that depression is a consequence of negative thinking. However, it can also be argued that irrational thinking is a consequence of depression.
Another strength is its success in its application to therapy. For example, cognitive behavioural therapy has consistently been fond to be the most effective and useful treatment for depression, with further research (e.g march et al) finding it to be even more effective when paired with drug treatments. This supports the cognitive explanation as it demonstrates that depression can be alleviated by replacing the negative thoughts with more positive ones, suggesting that they had a role in its development in the first place
A limitation of the cognitive approach is that it fails to take into account alternative explanations such as the biological approach, which explains depression in terms of genetic and neural factors. For example, a candidate gene called the SERT gene, which is associated with low levels of serotonin, is ten times more likely to be found in a depressed patient, suggesting a link between the two. Furthermore, research shows that drug therapies, which aide serotonin levels are successful in treating depression, supported by the fact that cognitive behavioural therapy has been proven more effective when paired with drug therapies. this suggests that other factors play a role in casing depression and so a Diathesis stress model could be a better approach to take in explaining depression
AO3 cognitive treatments of depression- CBT
One strength of CBT is the large body of evidence demonstrating its effectiveness. For example, March et al compared the effectiveness of CBT with that of antidepressant drugs and both treatments combined with 327 depressed adolescents. After 36 weeks, she found that 81% of the antidepressants group and 81% of the CBT group had significantly improved, demonstrating the effectiveness of CBT in the treatment. This means that there is a good case for making CBT the first choice of treatment in the NHS. However, March’s study also fund that the group who were treated with both antidepressants and CBT showed to be even more effective with 86% showing significant improvement after 36 weeks, suggesting that the treatment of depression should consist of a combination of drug treatments and CBT in order to maximise the effectiveness of the treatment. This demonstrates that cognitive explanations alone may not be enough to fully explain depression and so alternative explanations, such as the biological approach should also be considered.
One limitation is CBT’s lack of suitability for a diverse range of clients. In some severe cases of depression, individuals can lack motivation and so may struggle to engage themselves with the cognitive work of CBT or may even struggle to attend the session and so therefore the treatment will be ineffective. In these cases, alternative treatments such as antidepressants may be more effective in treating depression as they do not require as much motivation. This demonstrates that CBT is not always appropriate for a specific range of clients and so cannot be solely relied upon.
Another limitation is that CBT has high relapse rates. While CBT has been proven to be effective in the short term, there is evidence in the long term, individuals often experience a relapse. For example, Ali assessed depressed patients for 12 months following a course of CBT and found that 42% relapsed within the first 6 months of ending the treatment and 53% within a year. This suggests that CBT cannot be relied on as a long term treatment and so alternative treatments should be used instead. For example, Keller found that when used alone, 55% of those who were treated with drugs alone and 52% of those treated with CBT alone recovered, however, when used together, 85% of patients recovered. This provides further evidence that CBT and drugs should be used together when treating depression.
AO3 Biological explanations of OCD- Genetic
One strength is the large body of evidence for the genetic explanations of OCD from family studies. For example, Nestadt found that individuals who have a first degree relative with OCD are up to five times more likely to develop the disorder in their lifetime compared to others who do not. Furthermore, Billet investigated 14 pairs of twins and found that monozygotic twins had double the risk of developing OCD compared to dizygotic twins, if one of the pair had the disorder. This research strongly supports the genetic explanation of OCD, by suggesting that people who are genetically similar are more likely t share OCD, supporting the role of genetic vulnerabilities like the COMT gene.
-A limitation is that environmental risk factors are also proven to take a role in OCD. While genetics can subject individuals to a vulnerability to OCD, environmental factors can also trigger or increase the risk of OCD. For example, Cromer found that in one sample, over half of people with OCD experienced a traumatic event in their past. Furthermore, they found that those who had multiple traumas tended to have more severe OCD than the others. This means that genetics only play a partial role in the development of OCD, which the biological approach may ignore.
Neural -
The biological approach also explains OCD in terms of Neural factors. For example, low levels of serotonin, a neurotransmitter associated with mood and happiness, means that normal transmission of mood relevant information cannot take place and so the mood of a person is affected, often leaving them to feel in a negative way. These low levels of serotonin are often found in OCD patients, suggesting that it may play a role in OCD. The Worry circuit can also be used to explain OCD. The worry circuit is a system within the brain that deals with worry signals. The caudate nucleus suppresses any worry signals that it receives from the orbitofrotal cortex by differentiating between the major and minor worries. However, when the caudate nucleus is damaged, it is unable to carry out this function and so the thalamus is alerted, alerting the sympathetic nervous system which will carry out an action to suppress the ‘danger’, acting as a compulsion and reducing the anxiety created from the obsession. A damaged nucleus is commonly found in OCD patients, which suggests that there could possibly be an association between the two.
Evaluation
-One limitation of neural explanations is that cause and effect cannot be established. For example, it is difficult to establish whether a damaged caudate nucleus is the root cause of OCD or whether it is a symptom that comes with OCD. This is because brain scans on OCD patients are conducted retrospectively (after diagnoisis) and so it is hard to determine the relationship between the two. Furthermore, brain scans have found that not all OCD parties have damaged caudate nucleus, suggesting that there is no association between the caudate nucleus and OCD. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether biological factors are simply a symptom of OCD or the cause of it.
-The biological approach also fails to take into account alternative explanations of OCD. For example, the Two Process model suggests that learning could play a role in OCD. This proposes that the feared stimulus is initially learnt through classical conditioning where an association is formed between the obsssion and anxiety/ fear. For example, dirt is paired with anxiety. In the future, this behaviour is maintained through operant conditioning and negative reinforcement where the stimulus is avoided so the anxiety is removed. The result of this is the formation of an obsession and compulsion (E.G washing of hands which serves to reduce the anxiety felt ). Furthermore, the usefulness of this explanation is supported by its application in therapy (E.G flooding, SD), where one researcher found that symptoms were improved for 60%-90% of adults. This suggests that environmental factors should not be ignored and that a Diathesis stress model may be more appropriate.
AO3 Biological explanations of OCD- Neural
-A limitation of neural explanations is that it is difficult to establish a cause and effect relationship. For example, while there is evidence to suggest that certain neural systems do not function normally in patients suffering from OCD, such as the basal ganglia or orbitofrontal cortex, research has also linked OCD to other areas of the brain. This means that there is no brain system which has consistently been found to play a role in OCD. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there is a cause and effect relationship since it is difficult to conclude whether the biological abnormalities seen are a cause of OCD or the result of the disorder.
-There are also other convincing explanations for OCD, such as the behaviourist approach. The Two Process Model explains that the initial learning of the feared stimulus occurs through classical conditioning’s associative process, for example, dirt is paired with anxiety. This behaviour pattern would then be maintained through operant conditioning and negative reinforcement, whereby the stimulus is avoided and so the anxiety is removed. This could result in an obsession forming leading to the development of a compulsion, such as washing hands, which is performed to reduce the anxiety felt. Support for this alternative explanation is found in the success of behavioural treatments of OCD, like CBT. This suggests that neural explanations are not always a relevant explanation and that the two process model should also be considered.
