Definition
Abnormal psychology
Abnormal psychology focuses on behaviors that deviate significantly from societal norms and cause distress or dysfunction, qualifying as mental disorders.
Concepts of Abnormality
- Deviation from Social Norms:
- Behaviors deemed unacceptable in a specific society are considered abnormal.
- Strength: Simple, intuitive, and based on common sense.
- Limitations: Social norms vary across cultures and time, making this definition subjective and potentially ethically problematic.
- Inadequate Functioning (Rosenhan & Seligman, 1989):
- Seven criteria include suffering, maladaptiveness, and observer discomfort.
- Strength: Offers a multidimensional approach, including socially acceptable but harmful behaviors.
- Limitations: Overly inclusive and subjective, few behaviors meet all seven criteria. Judging a behaviour to be dysfunctional is difficult, as a person with a disorder may feel as though they are completely fine, even if their behaviour is harmful.
- Deviation from Ideal Mental Health (Jahoda, 1958):
- Six characteristics, such as efficient self-perception and positive relationships, define mental health.
- Strength: Humanistic, focusing on health rather than disorders.
- Limitations: Nearly impossible for individuals to meet all criteria, leading to overgeneralization. This model is also subject to cultural bias.
- Statistical Infrequency:
- Behaviors that are statistically rare are classified as abnormal.
- Strength: Quantifiable, linked to statistical norms.
- Limitations: Desirable traits (e.g., high IQ) may also be statistically infrequent but not abnormal.
- Medical Model:
- Mental disorders are defined by sets of observable symptoms, avoiding the need for a general definition of abnormality.
- Strength: Reduces subjectivity by focusing on observable symptoms.
- Limitations: Overlaps between disorders challenge the model’s precision.
Key Studies
Case studyRosenhan (1973) - Sane in Insane Places
Aim: To investigate whether psychiatrists could distinguish between sane and insane individuals in a naturalistic setting.
Method: Field study with participant observation.
Procedure:
- Eight healthy individuals sought admission to psychiatric hospitals, claiming they heard voices saying “empty,” “hollow,” and “thud.”
- They acted normally after admission, informing staff they were no longer experiencing symptoms.
- Observations were secretly documented during their hospital stay.
Results:
- Seven out of eight were admitted with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
- Patients were discharged with “schizophrenia in remission” after an average of 19 days.
- Normal behaviors were often misinterpreted as symptoms of mental illness.
- Staff spent limited time (less than seven minutes daily) interacting with patients.
Conclusion: The study highlights the influence of labeling in psychiatric diagnoses, raising questions about their validity.
Critical Thinking
Strengths and Limitations of Definitions
- Strengths: Concepts like statistical infrequency and inadequate functioning allow operationalization of abnormality, aiding research and diagnosis.
- Limitations: Definitions are often culturally biased and lack universality, especially with rapidly evolving societal norms.
- Also, we may exhibit abnormal symptoms without it being a disorder (e.g., we may feel sad, but that does not necessarily make it depression)
Applications and Ethical Considerations
- Applications: These frameworks guide clinical diagnosis and inform treatment strategies.
- Ethics: Misdiagnosis or labeling can lead to stigmatization and unnecessary treatment.
Research Evaluation
- Studies like Rosenhan (1973) underscore potential biases in psychiatric diagnosis, prompting improvements in classification systems.
- However, the study’s ecological validity is debated, given the artificiality of pseudo-patients. Also, the temporal validity of the study is something to consider, as it is over 50 years old.
