One way of defining abnormality is in terms of characteristics or behaviours that are statistically infrequent (the deviation from statistical norms definition). However, this does not take into account the desirability of a characteristic or behaviour. The definition also fails to recognise that in all cultures large numbers of people may engage in behaviours that constitute mental disorders. A further problem is the failure to identify how far a person must deviate before being 'abnormal'. Such decisions are difficult to make and then consequently justify.
The deviation from ideal mental health definition proposes that abnormal people do not possess characteristics that mental healthy people do, or possess characteristics that mentally healthy people do not.
This particular definition relies on value judgements about what constitutes ideal mental health. It is also bound by culture, era-dependent, and limited by the context in which behaviour occurs.
Abnormality has also been defined as a failure to function adequately (by not achieving some sense of personal well-being and making some contribution to a larger social group). Experiencing personal distress or discomfort, causing distress to others, and behaving in an unexpected or bizarre manner are often the reasons why people come to the attention of psychologists. Many consider the failure to function adequately definition as being the most useful single approach, and the one closest to common sense. However, none of the above on its own constitutes an adequate definition of abnormality, since bizarre behaviour, for example, might actually allow a person to function adequately in a particular context.
Another way of defining abnormality is in terms of a deviation from social norms. Abnormality is seen as behaving in ways society disapproves of, or not behaving in ways it approves of. Like other definitions, this one is bound by culture and era-dependency. Also, since most people have behaved in ways society disapproves of, most would be defined as 'abnormal.'
No one definition on its own is adequate. Behaviours that are classified as mental disorders do not necessarily reflect all of the various definitions. A truly adequate definition can probably only be achieved through a multiple definitions approach.
Psychologists disagree about the causes of abnormality and the best way in which to treat them. As a result, four different models of abnormality were devised in order to cover all of the different theories. One such model is the biological model which regards abnormality of mental functioning as an illness or a disease. This is because mental disorders are thought to be related to physical malfunctioning in the brain. Some mental disorders are thought to have an organic basis, such as a brain tumour, or poisoning due to alcohol or drug abuse. Mental disorders which do not have a clear organic cause are often referred to as functional disorders, although they are still thought to be physical in origin, because symptoms occur as a consequence of chemical changes in the brain. Why these changes take place is not perfectly clear, but it is though they may be due to a genetic defect or to life stressors.
There have been numerous criticisms of this particular model in its evaluation, the first of which is entitled 'The Biochemical theory', which criticises the somatic therapies such as psychiatric treatment used to cure the mental disorders of physical causes. It is now known that some chemical drugs affect the nervous system which in turn produce the symptoms of certain mental disorders which seems to suggest that a chemical imbalance is at the root of the problem. However, some psychologists disagree, believing that this chemical imbalance is the effect as opposed to the cause of mental problems. This would ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
There have been numerous criticisms of this particular model in its evaluation, the first of which is entitled 'The Biochemical theory', which criticises the somatic therapies such as psychiatric treatment used to cure the mental disorders of physical causes. It is now known that some chemical drugs affect the nervous system which in turn produce the symptoms of certain mental disorders which seems to suggest that a chemical imbalance is at the root of the problem. However, some psychologists disagree, believing that this chemical imbalance is the effect as opposed to the cause of mental problems. This would seem to contradict certain therapies such as psychiatry for focusing its attention primarily on symptoms. Genetic research has highlighted a possibility that some people may be genetically at risk of developing a mental disorder but by focusing attention and research funding solely on the issue of genetics, attention is distracted from environmental influences which are thought to play a significant role in mental disorders. A diagnosis of mental illness implies that a person is no way responsible for the abnormality of functioning and is therefore devoid from any blame thus creating a sympathetic response from others. In general however, people do not know hot to respond to someone diagnosed as mentally ill and a certain reservation given the potentially dangerous and unpredictable behaviour of some. Therefore this sympathy is more likely to give way to an avoidance of the person which in turn leads to the person feeling shunned from society.
Advocates of the behavioural model would not use the term 'mental disorder' since they have no interest in mental structures, only in overt behaviour. Accordingly, they argue, abnormal behaviour is learnt in the same way as most other behaviour, through stimulus-response mechanisms and operant conditioning. The behavioural model provides explanations for the emergence of specific, maladaptive or dysfunctional behaviours such as phobias, anxiety, depression and obsessive-compulsive disorders.
Pavlov 1927 explains how behaviour is learned through the association of an event in the environment (stimulus) with a physiological reaction (response) in the individual. Phobias, pathological fears of objects or situations, are thought to develop in this way. For example, a person may climb to the top of a high building, and when looking down experience nausea and dizziness. This may develop into a fear of heights which is so strong that it becomes a phobia. In classical conditioning, it is not the object or the situation, which is the cause of the fear, but the conditioned response to the object or situation. For example, it is the response of feeling sick and dizzy when looking down from a high building that causes the fear of heights, not the height itself.
Skinner 1974 explains how our behaviour is influenced by the consequences of our own actions. We learn the likely consequences of our on actions at a very early age through rewards and punishments from those who are caring for us. For example, anti-social personality disorders have been explained in operant conditioning terms. If childhood aggression is rewarded, then that behaviour is likely to be repeated and reinforced again and again. Behaviours that may appear maladaptive to others may be functional or adaptive to the individual. For example, anxiety or depression might produce secondary gain in the form of attention and concern for others. If a child grows up in a violent environment, the child learns anti-social behaviour by observing violent behaviour in others.
The behavioural model emphasises individual differences: we are all subject to our own unique learning experiences, which means that the gap between 'normal' and 'abnormal' is reduced. For example, cross-cultural studies have revealed that what is regarded as abnormal in one culture may be regarded as normal in another.
Many studies have been conducted to test out the behavioural model, such as the famous study by Watson and Raynor 1920 who conditioned a young boy named 'Little Albert' to fear white rats. However, because of the ethical considerations surrounding conditioning research with humans, many of the more recent studies have been carried out on animals and it is an open question whether such research can be extended to humans.
The starting point for any of the treatments is to identify those aspects of behaviour that are maladaptive and require changing. After that, conditioning or observational learning techniques are used to reduce or eliminate those maladaptive responses. In contrast to the other psychological approaches, the focus is very much on the patients' behavioural symptoms rather than on the underlying cause of the disorder, which is a key criticism of this approach. For example, a Freudian might say that the symptoms may have been cured but the cause still remains in the client's unconscious mind, only to resurface again in the future, only in a different way.
On the other hand, behavioural therapies have been very successful with certain kinds of disorder, for example phobias. They are more applicable to disorders with easily identifiable behavioural symptoms. The behavioural model exaggerates the importance of environmental factors in causing disorders and minimises the role played by genetic factors. As a result, it is of little value in explaining disorders such as schizophrenia which is likely to have a genetic basis. The behavioural model also minimises the role played by internal processes.
Those who favour the behavioural model are correct in assuming that the experiences people have in life, including the forms of conditioning to which they have been exposed, play a part in the development of mental disorders. However, conditioning is generally less important in humans than in the animal species studies in the laboratory by behaviourists.
In general terms, the behavioural model is oversimplified and rather narrow in scope. On the basis of the available evidence, it seems that only a small fraction of mental disorders depend to any great extent on the individual patient's conditioning history.
The behavioural model has some advantages from the ethical perspective. First, it is assumed that mental disorders result from maladaptive learning and thus should not be regarded as illnesses. Secondly, the focus on each individual's particular experiences and conditioning history means that the behavioural model is sensitive to cultural and social factors. Thirdly, the behavioural approach tends to be non-judgemental, in the sense that treatment is recommended only when an individual's behaviour causes severe problems to that person or to other people. Fourthly, it is assumed within the behavioural model that abnormal behaviour is determined mainly by environmental factors/ As a result, individuals who develop mental disorders should not be held responsible for these disorders.
There are ethical problems with some forms of the treatment based on this model. Aversion therapy involves giving very unpleasant stimuli, for example electric shocks, to patients in order to stop some undesirable form of behaviour, such as drinking in alcoholics. There has been much controversy about the morality of causing high levels of pain and discomfort. Most forms of treatment focus mainly on changing behaviour and it could be argued that dehumanising to neglect the patient's internal experienced and feelings. Therapies derived from the behavioural model can be seen as manipulative.
The third model of abnormality is known as the cognitive model, and the rationale behind the cognitive model is that the thinking processes between stimulus and response are seen as responsible for the feeling component of the response. This model holds that emotional problems can be attributed directly to distortions in our cognitions or thinking processes. These take the form of negative thoughts, irrational beliefs and illogical errors, such as overgeneralisation. These maladaptive thoughts, it is claimed, take place automatically, however, psychological problems only occur if people engage in faulty thinking to the extent that it has become maladaptive for themselves and others around them.
This particular model has become very influential in recent years. There is no doubt that distorted and irrational beliefs are very common amongst patients with mental disorders. Such beliefs seem to be of central importance in anxiety disorders and depression according to Beck and Clark 1988, but their importance has not been shown for most other disorders. It is also generally unclear as to whether distorted beliefs help to cause the disorder or whether they are merely a by-product of the disorder.
The cognitive approach grew out of a dissatisfaction with the behavioural model and its focus on external only. The cognitive model emphasised internal, mental influences and the power of the individual to shape their own thinking. In recent years, there have been increasing signs of an integration between the behavioural and cognitive models. According to this cognitive-behavioural model, mental disorders involve maladaptive behaviour as well as distorted thoughts and beliefs.
On the negative side, the cognitive approach to abnormality is rather limited. Genetic factors are ignored and little attention is paid to the role of social and interpersonal factors or of individuals' life experiences in producing mental disorders.
According to the cognitive model, individuals with mental disorders have distorted thoughts and beliefs and so the disorders are mainly their own fault. That notion raises a number of ethical issues. First, patients may find it stressful to accept responsibility for their mental disorder. Secondly, it may be unfair to blame individuals for their mental disorder, because others around them may be mainly responsible. It is suggested that the root of maladaptive experiences may be childhood experiences. Thirdly, the negative thoughts and beliefs of those with mental disorders are often entirely rational, and reflect accurately the unfortunate circumstances in which a person is living. Attempts to put the blame on to the patient may inhibit efforts to produce desirable behaviour.
Each of the models explain the origins of abnormality in different ways. However, these models are not necessarily mutually exclusive, since each is effectively examining a different aspect of the individual. The biological model observes that learned behaviour can be maladaptive whilst the cognitive model claims that thoughts can be irrational and therefore also maladaptive. The behaviourist model states that abnormal behaviour is learnt in the same way as other types of behaviour through stimulus-response mechanisms and operant conditioning. Each of the models is subject to certain practical and ethical considerations also.
