Psychopathology (evaluation) Flashcards
What evaluation point can be discussed for all definitions of abnormality?
Cultural relativism, however do it only on statistical infrequency and deviation from ideal mental health.
Cultural relativism for Statistical infrequency -
Behaviours that are statistically infrequent in one culture may be frequent in another culture. For example schizophrenia and claiming of hearing voices, however in some other cultures this is common. Meaning there are no universal standards for labelling a behaviour as abnormal.
Some abnormal behaviours are desirable and exist outside the mean and standard deviations away -
A problem is that many behaviours are actually quite desirable, for example very few people have IQ over 150 but this abnormality is not undesirable but desirable. Therefore the use of statistical infrequency to define abnormality means we are unable to distinguish between desirable and undesirable behaviours.
Cultural relativism of ideal mental health -
Many of Marie Jahoda’s criteria are culture bound, the goal of reaching self-actualisation is relevant to members of individualistic cultures but not collectivist cultures who promote the needs of the group more than themselves, so applying to different cultures and especially collectivist cultures we will find most probably find a higher incidence of abnormalities. Therefore it limits the usefulness of the definition to some culture groups.
The benefits of the approach of deviation of ideal mental health is it focuses on the positives and not the negatives -
This definition focuses on positives rather than negatives it focuses on what is desirable rather than undesirable. The ideas have some influence and are accord with positive psychology movement, therefore lies in a positive outlook and its influence on the humanistic approach.
Deviation from social norms temporal validity -
What was socially acceptable today may not have been 50 years ago, for example homosexuality is acceptable in most countries but 50 years ago it was under gender and sexual identity disorders in the DSM, for example in Russia 50 years ago anyone who disagreed with the state regarded the risk of being insane and being placed in a mental institution, therefore when defining this specific type of abnormality there is a real danger of creating definitions based on prevailing social morals and attitudes.
Deviance is also related to context and degree - (To put it simpler a time and a place) -
For example a person on a beach wearing next to nothing is regarded as normal, whereas the same clothing or lack of clothing at a family event of a classroom would be regarded as abnormal and a potential sign of abnormality. This means that it cannot offer a complete definition of of abnormality because it needs to be related to a time and a place. So when considering if someone is defined as abnormal they should consider other potential factors.
Failure to function adequately is subjective -
Who is the person who decides the individual is failing to function adequately. If a person is experiencing personal distress for example they are struggling to get to work or eat regular meals, they may recognise that this is undesirable and be content to live like this and not want any advice, it is others who judge the behaviour as abnormal, therefore a limitation of the approach is the judgement depends on who is making the decision.
Adequate functioning can be focused on an objective approach as well and does take into account the subjective approach on the individual -
Adequate functioning can be measured objectively through the use of the WHODAS scale. So it does consider its subjectivity experience of the individual and therefore is considered to be a more sensitive definition and is more practical.
The two-model ignores cognitive factors -
There are cognitive factors influencing phobias, for example it may propose that phobias may develop as a cause of irrational thinking. For example a person in a lift may be flooded with irrational thoughts and believe oh shit I could be stuck here and stuck in irrational thinking. These cognitive thoughts lend itself with cognitive therapies such as CBT which is very effective at treating irrational fears.
Incomplete explanation of the two-process model as not everyone associates NS with fear for example in dogs -
This can be explained by the diathesis-stress model, proposes a genetic vulnerability (diathesis) for developing mental disorders. But this disorder will only develop itself if triggered by a real-life event, such as being bitten by a dog (stress)
Little Albert study - (evaluation)
Watson and Rayner. Little Albert at the start had no no feared response to white furry rats. (White rat was a NS) used a steel bar to startle Little Albert when he went to reach to the rat. Repeated this 3 times and a week later and found a conditioned response as when Albert was shown the rat he began to cry, he also associated other things that were white Watson wearing a white beard and a cute white rabbit.
Treating phobias is effective for all -
Not useful for in treating underlying evolutionary survival component phobias (fear of the dark, heights or animals) compared to treating phobias which have been learnt. Only useful for some.
Individual differences in flooding -
Highly traumatic experience and not for everyone, they are made aware but may quit and this reduces effectiveness and ultimately ruins it as a treatment.
Support for effectiveness of SD -
McGrath reported that 75% of patients with phobias respond to this with counterconditioning, it appears to lie in vivo techniques so in real time rather than just using pictures or imagining a feared stimulus.
