Psychology Abnormality

This essay explores what is abnormality with respect to the different ways by which it can be defined such as statistical infrequency, deviation from social norms, failure to function adequately and deviating from ideal mental health and viewing their limitations and by using different models such as Psychodynamic, Cognitive, Behavioural and Medical model in identifying what is abnormal and their treatment. But the essay would focus more on the medical model and the different approaches used to define abnormality all have their focus point which is to distinguish between what is normal and abnormal.
In order to understand abnormal psychology, it is essential to first understand what it meant by the term "abnormal." The meaning seems obvious; abnormal indicates something that is outside of the norm. But am talking about the norms of a particular group, gender or age and many human behaviours can follow what is known as the normal curve. Looking at this bell-shaped curve, the majority of individuals are clustered around the highest point of the curve, which is known as the average. People who fall very far at either end of the normal curve might be considered "abnormal."

One of the approaches used to define abnormality is statistical infrequency. This is when statistics is used to define the norm for any group of people. According to this approach abnormality is defined as deviating away from the mean which is represented on a normal distribution curve. Using statistical infrequency to define abnormality means that it is impossible to distinguish between desirable and undesirable behaviours. For example according to this definition left-handed people would be regarded as abnormal. However in context this being left-handed cannot be classified as being either normal or abnormal. In the case of depression, any symptoms experienced by around 80% of the population are thought to be normal but those experienced by 20% would be defined as abnormal. However there should be a cut-off point which should be used to decide what a normal or abnormal symptom is. The cut-off point is important as it would be used to determine what sort of treatment an individual receives. Due to the difficulty experienced in choosing the cut-off point in relation to abnormality or normality, the statistical infrequency cannot be seen as a successful means to classify or identify desirable and undesirable behaviours. This therefore highlights that this may be difficult to use in defining abnormality. Although the statistical infrequency is a very precise and scientific method; the great failure of this approach is that the decision that someone is abnormal is very objective rather than being very subjective.
The deviation from social norms is another approach used to define abnormality. In all societies there are standards of acceptable behaviour that are set by social groups. These social norms include morals and expectations of how one should behave or act. These norms are usually set for good reasons. One such example is politeness. In Japan, when greeting someone it is custom (normal) to lower your head as a sign of respect, but if you were not to do this you would be labelled abnormal or in this case, disrespectful. In other words, not doing what everyone else is doing is seen as abnormal. Another form of example is in some part of the world homosexuality is seen as been abnormal because everyone believes in heterosexuality which is the normal thing. Davison, et al [2004] believes homosexuality is abnormal but at the same time still thinks it is normal for people to practise homosexuality. Abnormal behaviour is seen as deviation from implicit rules about how one ought to behave. This approach takes into account the effect behaviour has on others as well. This means that to a certain extent this approach has been successful in defining abnormality. In India it is deemed normal for girls as young as 9 years of age to marry much older men. However this does not mean that it would be acceptable in other countries like the UK. In other words, the ‘norms’ from one social group cannot be used to classify another group’s behaviour. In some countries the norms that is the morals and beliefs, may be affected by some factors including religion, sexuality and gender.
The deviation from social norm approach has been criticized as some say it is not always a bad thing to deviate from the norm. This is applicable in the case of people in Germany that resisted the Nazi occupation during the Second World War and also deviance and non conformism are sometimes confused in this model. These limitations suggest that the use of deviation from social norms as a means of defining abnormality is difficult over a long period of time and in particular contexts
The third approach used to define abnormality is the deviation from ideal mental health. This approach defines what normal is and regards any deviation from this as abnormal. It states that a person is abnormal if they are not constantly striving towards or competent in self-attitudes, personal growth, integration, autonomy, perception of reality, environmental mastery. This definition focuses on the positive aspects of mental health instead of physical health. For example; doctors would say that a high temperature means a person is ill. This approach uses the same idea, but relates it to mental health instead of physical health. However, some of the criteria are vague and hard to define such as self-actualization. Hence this is makes this a limitation when using this approach because not everyone would be able to achieve the point about personal growth as stated by Rogers [1959] and Maslow [1954] who believed that abnormality is the result of a person not achieving their life goals. On the other hand Jahoda 1958 believed ‘abnormality’ and ‘normality’ concepts are useless because they are culturally dependant. Jahoda [1985] identified categories that clinicians typically relate to mental health. They are self-attitudes, self-esteem, identity, personal growth, integration autonomy which is how much a person is independent of social influences, perception of reality and environmental mastery that is success and addictiveness including the ability to love, work and play. The limitation to this definition is that it is impossible for an individual to achieve all their goals [ideal characteristic] at all time.
The final approach used to define abnormality is failure to function adequately. This approach considers abnormality from the individual’s point of view. Most people aim to cope with day-to-day living, therefore using this approach abnormality can be defined in terms of not being able to cope. For example if one is depressed this is acceptable as long as they can still carry on doing day-to-day activities. Therefore failure to function adequately refers to an individual’s inability to cope with day-to-day living. This approach provides an opportunity to view mental disorder from the point of view of the person experiencing it.
This approach uses the Rosenham and Seligman’s [1989] 7 abnormal characteristics theory to aid its definition of abnormality thereby enhancing the ability to label a person normal or abnormal. The 7 characteristics include suffering which is defined as the experience of personal distress of discomfort, maladaptiveness which is prevents good relationships and the achievement of life goals, vividness and unconventional behaviour, unpredictability and loss of control which leads to uncontrolled and inappropriate behaviour, irrationality/ incomprehensibility, observer discomfort and violation of moral and ideal standards which is behaviour that is against the moral standards of society. The Rosenham and Seligman’s theory states that the fewer of these characteristics that a person shows, the closer to normal they are. However but if a person exhibited several of these characteristics, this means they are abnormal.
One of the limitations to this approach is that most judgements are subjective and some of the 7 characteristics are unreliable. For example personal distress is not a solid proof of abnormality as not all mental disorders are accompanied by a state of distress. Also an abnormal behaviour may actually be helpful because it contributes to an individual’s normal function and adaptive behaviour. For example, a person who has obsessive compulsive disorder of hand washing may find that the behaviour makes them cheerful, happy and better able to cope with their day to day activities.

A clear evaluation of the approaches stated above proves that abnormality is hard to define as it is perceived differently in different cultures and from different perspectives. They all focus on a particular area without considering other areas. This is the reason why the different approaches have been used in an attempt to distinguish abnormality from normality.
Another model of abnormality is known as the Medical approach or sometimes the biological approach. This approach uses physical illness as a model for psychological disorder, suggesting that mental illness has an underlying bodily cause. It proposes that genetic, organic or chemical factors cause mental illnesses which give rise to behavioural and psychological problems. Mental illness may be due to brain dysfunction {neurological}, biochemical imbalances, infections or genetics. The manifestation of these symptoms can be used to determine what medical/physical treatment would be available.
On the other hand the cognitive approach focuses on an individual’s way of thinking and suggests that psychological problems or disorders {abnormality} are caused by repressed emotion and experiences from the past(usually childhood) and as a result of this repression, alternative behaviour or maladaptive behaviour replaces what is being repressed. Warren and Zgourides {1991} explain that it was the “must” thoughts of these individuals that create the disorder, for example “I must perform well otherwise it will be awful”. Kovacs and Beck [1978] point out some key ideas in defining abnormality through cognitive that “from commonplace processes such as faulty learning, making incorrect inferences on the basic of inadequate or incorrect information” The patient is believed to be cured by the use of altering the faulty thinking by reflecting back on their past while the medical model believes that treating any mental abnormality must be physical or biological
Medical model view is that the individual’s behaviour is determined by factors outside his or her control, the cognitive model believes that the individual is in control. This is because individuals control their own thoughts and feelings.
Medical model analyse that neurotransmitter, serotonin, which are major psychological illness such as bipolar disorder and anorexia are caused by the reduce level of serotonin in the brain. The medical model suggest that any psychological illness should be treated like any physical illness either caused by chemical imbalance or stress and should be treated either by surgery [electroconvulsive therapy],or drugs.
Psychological illness could be treated under the medical model by the use of electroconvulsive therapy, drugs, psychosurgery [prefrontal lobotomy] which helps in treating some disorder and illness. At present, there are lots of drugs used in disorder treatment such as tranquillizers used to relieve anxiety; anti depressants help to relieve depression and anti psychotic to relieve hallucinations and mental confusion. Drug treatment is better than nothing as they don’t cure the problem but only reduce the symptoms and patients often prefer drug therapy, as it is quicker, easier and less threatening than talk therapy. The behavioural model sees abnormality as behaviour learnt through conditioning and it focus on reinforcing positive behaviours and not reinforcing maladaptive behaviours. Behaviours models seem to be successful but don’t focus on the underlying factor of the illness and so have more chances of reoccurrence.
Medical model genetically believe that there are some link in causing psychological disorder, Example is when there are concordance studies to examine the role genetics play in disorder such as schizophrenia. In regard to the dopamine hypothesis that involves the exception of paranoid schizophrenia, and the direct cause of schizophrenic symptoms is an excess of the neurotransmitter dopamine, and by the use of anti-schizophrenic drugs such as chlorpromazine work by combining to dopamine receptor sites, thus reducing dopamine activities while the cognitive approach do not see the treatment of abnormality in the same view as the medical approach but the behavioural and cognitive model use the same treatment methods but psychiatrists of the cognitive model use differing methods for treatment and the important one is the use of Rational Emotional Therapy.
The medical model, Szasz [1962] criticise mental illness and believed that medical approach can also have consequences, whether biologically responsible or not, as drugs always have a chance of causing allergic reactions or addiction compare to other models .The prefrontal lobotomy which could have a nasty tendency to leave the patient vegetabilized or numb with a flat personality, shuffling movement. Electrotherapy which could cause unnecessary stress and the surgery can lead to death as well as dull the personality, as the area of the brain responsible for emotion (Hypothalamus) is often altered or even damaged that might lead to removal. In conclusion I would like to say that medical model is the most safes one by using drugs of different kinds to treat diseases in helping or alleviating human suffering, but this model also have its negative side to treatment and surgery because drugs can have have serious side effects and lead to drug dependence and surgery such as electroconvulsive shock therapy can make the lives of patients worse rather than better as compared to other models.

Reference
Cardwell, M., et al [2003] Psychology for As Level Third Edition. London: Harper Collins Publisher
David. R, Haralambos, M, Jones, S, Foreman, N. and Askan, W., [2000] Psychology in Focus As Level. Edition First Impression. London: Causeway Press Ltd.
Davison, G. C, Neale, J. M. and Kring, A. M., [2004] Abnormal Psychology. Ninth Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Ellis, A., [1993] Fundamentals of Rationsl-Emotive Therapy for the 1990s. In W. Dryden and Hill, L. K. (eds), Innovations in Rotational-Emotive Therapy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Eysenck, M.W. and Flanagan, C., [2000] Psychology for As Level. Hove: Psychology Press.
Eysenck, H. J., [1952] The Effects of Psychotherapy: An Evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
Freud, S., [1856 -1939] Screen Memories: Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Volume 111. London; Hogarth Press.
Grahame, H., [2001] Oxford revision guides As & A Level Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Gross, R. D., [2010] Psychology the Science of Mind and Behaviour. Sixth Edition, London: Hodder and Stoughton:
Hall, N., et al [2008] As Level Psychology. London: Crown House plc
Heather, N., (1976) Radical Perspectives in Psychology. London: Methuen.
Jahoda, M., (1958) Current Concepts of Positive Mental Health. New York: Basic Book.
Lardlaw, K., [2003] Cognitive Bahaviour Therapy. London: John Wiley and Sons Littlewood, R. and Lipsedge, M., [1997] Aliens and Alienists: Ethnic Minorities and Psychiatry. Third Edition. London: Routledge.
Mackay, D., [1975] Clinical Psychology: Theory and Therapy. London: Methuen.
Maher, B. A., [1966] Principle of Psychopathology: An Experimental Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marslow, A., [1954] Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Mcleod, S. A., [2002] Simply Psychology. [Online] available at http://www.simplypsychology.org/abnormal-psychology.html. Accessed on 20/04/12
Rogers, C. R., [1959] A Theory of Therapy, Personality and Interpersonal Relationships as Developed in the Client-Centred Framework. In Koch, S. (ed.) Psychology: A study of Science. Volume 111. Formulations of the Person and the Social Context. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rosenhan, D. L. and Seligman, M. E., [1989] Abnormal Psychology. New York: Norton.
Rosenthal, R. [1966] Experimenter Effects in Behavioural Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Smith, P. K, Cowie, H. and Blader, M., [1986] Psychology- The Frontiers of Behavioural. Third Edition. New York: Harper and Row.
Szasz, T. S., [1962] The Myth of Mental Illness. New York: Harper and Row
Szasz, T. S., [1971] From the Slaughterhouse to the Madhouse. Psychotherapy Theory Research and Practise
Szasz, T. S., [1974] Ideology and Insanity. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Tandon, R. and Kane, J. M., [1993] Neuropharmacology basic for Clozapine’s Unique Profile. Archives of general Psychology,
Taylor, S. E. and Brown, J. D., [1998] Illusion and Well-Being: A social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health, Psychology Bulletin, 103, 193-210
Warren and Zgourides., [1991] Anxiety Disorder-A Rational Emotive Perspective. New York: Longman Higher Education
Wood, B., [1995] Basic in Psychology. Hodder and Stoughton: London.