Psypath: defs. of abnormality AO1 + AO3 Flashcards
limitation SD -> some abnormal behaviours are desirable
e- e.g. few ppl have IQs of 150+, infrequent, not undersirable. are also common but undesirable
e- e.g. depression= common but considered abnormal + underdesirable
l- can’t distinguish between un/desirable behaviours
strength SD-> appropriate in some circumstances
e- e.g. IQ measured in terms of normal distribtion (high= 2+ SDs away from mean)
e- means def. has real life application- used as irl measure for some behaviours
l-increases validity of def. for use as measure of defining abnormality
limitation DSN-> social norms chance over time (inconsistent)
e- e.g. gay is acceptable in most western countries, but was a class in DSM + illegal in past
e- if someone is defined as abnormal is dependent on prevailing social + moral attitudes
l- can make inconsistent results across history- lacks temp.valid
strength deviation from soc.norms (DSN)-> useful for clinical prac.
e- key def. characteristics of antisocial personality disorder is failure to conform to culturally acceptable ethical standards
e- DSN is helpful in diagnosing schizotypal personality disorder (‘strange’ beliefs/behaviour)
l- means DSN is useful in psychiatric diagnosis
limitation failure to function adequately (FTFA)-> requires objective judgement of a way of life
e-some may not see having a job as FTFA, but those w/alternative lifestyle may disagree (e.g. extreme sports- may also be seen in a maladaptive way)
e-if we treat these as ‘failures’ of adequate functioning, may limit personal freedom/discriminating minority groups
l-challenges def., depends who is making judgement, not behaviour
limitation deviation from ideal mental health (DIMH)-> sets unachievable standards for mental health
e-few ppl reach ‘self actualisation’, changes for each person- so DIMH says many ppl have abmormal aspects
e-criteria=hard to measure, e.g. how easy to assess if some1 has capacity for personal growth?
l- so def. may not be useful, but could be better in positive psych. field at criteria to strive for
strength FTFA-> takes into account pts (patients) perspective
e-can view mental disorder from POV of person experiencing it
e-easy to judge objectivity- can list behaviours (e.g.cook/shower) + check if a person is functioning
l-so if treatment/support is needed, can be specific to pt’s needs
strength DIMH-> criterion is highly comprehensive
e-Jahoda’s concept includes a wide range of criteria + most reasons why ppl get MH support
e-allows MH to be discussed meaningfully w/range of professionals w/diff. theoretical views (psychiatrist/CBT therapist)
l-means ideal MH gives checklist we can assess/discuss psychological issues against
limitation DIMH-> cultural relativism (CR)
e- some of Jahoda’s criteria are specific to European/American cultures- cultural bound (e.g. self-actualisation more common in individualistic cultures, collectivists may see independence as negative)
e- so by generalising the decision may be seen as ethnocentric- judging ‘normal’ by western + individualistic standards
l- so is problematic, not universal explanation of abnormality
limitation SD-> cultural relativism (CR)
e-e.g. hearing symptoms of schiz are common + not seen as abnormal in some cultures, but it is seen less in others
e-some behaviours can be more statistically infrequent in some cultures than others
l-so SD doesn’t consider cultural diffs, not universal explanation of abnormality
limitation DSN-> cultural relativism (CR)
e- e.g. DSM is based on Western soc.norms
e-what is classed as abnormal is based on those norms, ignored eastern soc.norms/values, so is ethnocentric to use DSM to classify ppl from eastern cultures
l-so DSN doesn’t consider cultural diffs, not universal explanation of abnormality
limitation FTFA-> cultural relativism (CR)
e- idea of if pt is functioning is related to cultural ideas of how ppl should live their lives + how it could be class dependent
e-may explain why lower class/non white pts are diagnosed more often, diff. lifestyles to those making the decisions
l-so FTFA doesn’t consider cultural diffs, not universal explanation of abnormality
statistical infrequency
individual has less common characteristic than most of pop.- less seen behaviour
deviation from social norms
any behaviour which differs from ‘normal’
society established ‘norms’ of behaviour, how ppl should act- done thru ‘socialisation’
ppl act diff to expected
failure to function adequately
unable to deal w/demands of everyday life
failure to maintain basic nutrition/hygiene/relationships/employment
Rosenhan & Seligman signs of failure to function adequately
not conforming to interpersonal rules (eye contact/personal space)
experience of severe personal distress
behaviour is irrational/dangerous
deviation from ideal mental health
Jahoda’s criteria-
accurate perception of reality
pos. attitude to themselves- good self esteem
self actulisation/reach potential
resistance to stess
environmental mastery
autonomous
cultural relativism
cannot judge behavior unless viewed in cultural context it came from
ethnocentricism
lack of cultural relativism results in norms of home culture used to assess behaviour from other cultures
Rosenhan & Seligman (1989)
Proposed signs of FTFA: nonconformance to interpersonal rules/ experience of personal distress/ irrational/dangerous behaviour
Jahoda (1958)
Developed criteria for signs of good mental health: accurate perception of reality, positive attitude to themselves, self-actualization, resistance to stress, environmental mastery, be independent of other ppl.
