Abnormal Psychology Flashcards
(117 cards)
Normality
conformity to standard/regular behavioural patterns
abnormality
behaviour that doesn’t conform to regular patterns
using statistics to identify abnormality
interpretation of abnormal behaviour as behaviour that is statistically infrequent/uncommon
weaknesses of the interpretation of abnormality as statistically infrequent behaviour
- harder to be sure of the average when numbers aren’t involved (e.g. how much hunger is normal/abnormal?)
- we need to know more about a person before labelling their behaviour as normal/abnormal
- abnormality is often attributed to mental illness
- however, not all abnormalities is considered a sign of madness/disorder
- people with very low IQ are labeled with disorders, but people with very high IQ are respected and not stigmatised (although both are statistical abnormalities)
social norms vs statistics in identifying abnormal behavior
- social norms dictate proper behavioural responses to specific situations (e.g. it’s acceptable to talk loudly in a noisy cafe but not in a cinema)
- when social rules are violated, even if the violations are not statistically infrequent, it is considered abnormal
- people who deviate from social norms tend to be considered abnormal and will be attributed to mental illness
problems with defining abnormalities using social norms
- social norms vary across cultures
- Read et al. (2004) found a historical variation in abnormal behaviour: things that were considered mental illness symptoms are now acceptable in many cultures & situations
- social norms are largely determined by groups with social power (e.g. in many cultures it is considered abnormal for a woman to drink too much alcohol but it’s not abnormal for men)
using observations of maladaptiveness to identify abnormality
- assumption: all humans behave in a way beneficial to themselves (i.e. doesn’t interfere or enhances functioning)
- people are expected to develop understanding and conformity to social norms (regardless of agreement)
- maladaptive behaviour: behaviour that interferes with one’s ability to function within that social context, e.g. Internet addiction (people may be so hooked on the internet that their real relationships decay)
problem with associating maladaptiveness with abnormality
- sometimes people will engage in behavior detrimental to functioning
- this is not always because of a serious disorder
e. g. Guillermo Farinas, a political protestor, went on a hunger strike to protest against Internet censorship
using observations of suffering/distress to identify abnormality
- maybe one should inquire over another person’s health if they see maladaptive behavior
- however, this assumes the other person has the self-awareness to know they’re in distress
e. g. Irritability is a depression symptom that men often overlook as they don’t think it’s important - note that distress is a normal reaction to challenging life events (e.g. death of a loved one)
Jahoda’s positive mental health theory
- Marie Jahoda (1958) tried to define normality instead of abnormality
- she thought it would be easier to identify abnormal behavior as behavior that deviates from the definition of normality
the six components of Jahoda’s positive mental health theory
- positive self-schema
- growth and development
- fitting in well in society
- self-government/independence
- accurate perception of reality
- feeling in control of events in one’s life
This approach suggests that ideal mental health means an individual has:
- realistic and positive acceptance of self
- consistent resistance to stress
- the ability to take voluntary action to accentuate growth in their environment
problems with Jahoda’s positive mental health theory
- very few people actually fit in the six criteria
- Taylor and Brown (1988): depressed people have a more accurate perception of reality, and functioning adequately requires some extent of self-delusion
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
- describes disorders in clear terms to minimise differing interpretations (so different clinicians will likely reach the same diagnosis)
- groups disorders into categories and lists symptoms required for diagnosis of a particular disorder
- the disorders listed are not set in stone
- enforces multiaxial approach: a clinician should consider a potential patient’s symptoms, medical conditions, and social and environmental problems they may face
- this supports the idea that the origin of each person’s problem should be analysed via a bio-psycho-social framework
International Classification of Diseases (ICD)
- originally a means of standardising records of causes of death
- for classification rather than diagnosis
- contains wide range of diseases and conditions
- mental disorders section looks similar to DSM as the authoring teams consult each other
Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD)
- culture-specific: it focuses on issues related to Chinese culture
- disorders in ICD and DSM that aren’t common in China are left out
- some disorders in CCMD aren’t in ICD or DSM (as some are culture-bound)
e. g. Koro, an anxiety/depression disorder caused by a meditative exercise (Qigong)
ethical considerations of using diagnostic systems
- may not be reliable
- not valid to take a medical approach to psychological problems
- interpretations of symptoms may vary
e. g. in the Soviet Union, schizophrenia diagnoses were given far more liberally than in USA - ethnic minorities or women might not be treated equally like others in their diagnoses (psychologists may not make an effort to understand cultural differences, etc)
types of reliability tests
- inter-rater reliability
- test-retest reliability
inter-rater reliability
assessed by asking multiple practitioners to diagnose the same person with the same diagnostic system
test-retest reliability
asking a practitioner to diagnose a person more than once (e.g. on two different days)
Nicholls et al. (2000) AIM
to test the reliability of DSM, ICD, and the Great Ormond Street hospital’s diagnostic system using inter-rater reliability
Nicholls et al. (2000) PROCEDURE
- Two practitioners were asked to use ICD/DSM/GOS to diagnose 81 children
- The 81 children had complained of eating problems
Nicholls et al. (2000) RESULTS
Inter-rater reliability (rates of agreement between the two practitioners) of:
- DSM: 0.636
- ICD: 0.357
- GOS: 0.879
Nicholls et al. (2000) CONCLUSION
- GOS is most reliable
- possibly because GOS was specifically designed for children
- expected that with more children, more diagnoses would occur and agreement rates would increase
Nicholls et al. (2000) EVALUATION
- less than half of the children diagnosed using DSM could be diagnosed with a classified eating disorder, so rates of agreement for DSM could not be fully established