IB Psychology Mr Poll



Discuss the concepts of normality and abnormality.Theories/Approaches to Defining Abnormality1. Abnormality as a deviation from social normsSomething that falls out outside the boundaries of what is accepted in societyLimitations:How do we account for the fact that societies are different and changeable?The use of ‘abnormality’ as a means of social controlSome patterns of behaviour may be socially acceptable, but potentially harmful to the individualE.x. it is normal to have fears, however irrational fears can interfere greatly with one’s lifeAbnormality must be evaluated in a contextE.x. the way we behave at school vs. at a party2. Abnormality as inadequate functioning Based on the ideas of Rosenhan and Seligman (1989) who proposed 7 criteria for abnormality:SufferingMaladaptiveness (inability to achieve major life goals)Unconventional behaviourUnpredictability/Loss of ControlIrrationalityObserver DiscomfortViolation of Moral StandardsLimitationsDoes not account for cases when abnormal behaviour may actually be adaptiveE.x. fear of leaving home may serve the purpose of failure avoidanceSome behaviours may be harmful but we do not classify them as abnormal E.x. extreme sportsSome behaviours may be uncomfortable to observers, but do not cause subjective suffering E.x. public displays of affectionFrom the limitations, Rosenhan and Seligman claimed that there are degrees of abnormality based on how many criteria are metEach individual criterion may not be significant on its own, but when multiple criteria are present, abnormality may be inferred3. Abnormality as a deviation from ideal mental health “Ideal mental health” as a criterion of normality was proposed by psychologists in the 1950sHumanistic psychologists were known for their belief that psychology should focus on positive aspects of human experiences rather than negative things such as mental illnessMarie Jahoda (1958) identified 6 characteristics of ideal mental healthEfficient self-perceptionRealistic self-esteemVoluntary control of behaviourAccurate perception of the worldPositive relationshipsSelf-direction and productivityStrengths:Mental health is defined positivelyOutlines main dimensions of mental health in a balanced way: embraces interpersonal relationships, self-perception, perception of world, etcLimitations:It may be impossible to fully achieve all 6 parameters of mental health - most people would be classified as abnormalParameters are difficult to measure/quantifyTerms such as “efficient”, “realistic”, and “accurate” require further operationalization4. Abnormality as statistical infrequencyA characteristic of behaviour or a trait of personality is classified as abnormal if it is statistically unusualThresholds established to gauge normsFirst threshold is 95% (if an individual is different from 95% of the rest of the population, he falls outside the norm)Second threshold is 99% Third threshold is 99.9%StrengthsIt suggests a way to quantify abnormalityLimitationsStatistical norms changeStatistically infrequent behaviour can sometimes be desirable5. Medical model of abnormality Looking at each disorder separately and establishing a set of symptoms that define itAssumes that disorders have a cause, but since the cause is not directly observable, it can only be inferred on the basis of more observable symptomsStrengthsFlexibility (allows for various perspectives concerning mental illness)Makes it possible for diagnosis to be independent of a clinician’s theoretical orientationsLimitationsMuch more difficult to apply to mental illness than to physical disease (symptoms are not as obvious or observable)Need to decide which symptoms are related to which disorders (one symptom maybe an indication of multiple disorders)Rosenhan (1973) - Sane in Insane PlacesAimTo challenge the reliability and validity of diagnosing and investigate the effects of labellingMethodField experimentCovert observationProcedureParticipants: 8 (5 male, 3 female)Gained admittance in psychiatric wards at hospitals as pseudo-patients (using fake names and jobs)Claimed they were hearing voices (empty, hollow, thud)After being admitted in the hospital, they stopped showing pseudo-symptoms and acted ordinarilyMade notes about their life and treatment in the hospitalParticipants asked staff favours to test their behaviour toward patients‘Pardon me, Mr/Mrs/Dr X, could you tell me when I will be presented at the staff meeting?’. (or ‘…when am I likely to be discharged?’)Similar procedure was carried out with Students at Stanford University with students asking university staff a simple question.Results were used to compare.ResultsAll pseudo-patients disliked the environment and wanted to be discharged immediately.All participants were “diagnosed” with schizophrenia.No staff suspected their sanity.Patients in the ward, however, did suspect the sanity of some of them, and reacted vigorously.For example: ‘You’re not crazy. You’re a journalist, or a professor. You’re checking up on the hospital’.Patients were deprived of almost all human rights e.g. privacyMedical records were not kept confidentialHygiene was poorWardens would be brutal to patients when no other warden was aroundIndicates that patients had no credibility, but wardens do.Time spent with nurses, psychiatrist etc. averaged under 7 minutes per day.7 of 8 people admitted, range of 7-52 days, average of 19 days to get outConclusionThere is an enormous overlap in the behaviours of the sane and the insane.We all feel depressed sometimes, have moods, become angry and so forth.But in the context of a psychiatric hospital, these everyday human experiences and behaviours were interpreted as pathological.Regarding the favor asked, most pseudo patients were ignored. where as all questions were addressed in the Stanford University experiment.Experience of hospitalization for the pseudo patients was one of depersonalization and powerlessness.EvaluationField experiment/covert observation, high ecological validity.Can argue that experiment is low in ecological validity, psychiatrist don’t usually diagnose “pseudo-patients”.It is expected that the person will have some sort of disorder if they seek diagnosis.Psychiatrists would normally play safe in their diagnosis.Because there is always an outcry when a patient is let out of psychiatric care and gets into trouble.Always a higher likelihood of diagnosing a normal person sick than a sick person normal.DSM-II was in used then, an updated version of the DSM (DSM-IV) used now has more sophisticated descriptions for diagnosis.Showed that patients suffering from psychological disorders experienced.Labeling and stigmatizationDepersonalisationDiscriminationControversial study.Psychiatrists could not give consent to the study nor choose to withdrawDeception was involved, unethical.Not cross cultured, small sample size so low generalizability and population validityApplicationsImprove and motivate psychological and psychiatric diagnosis of patients ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download