The study by Brown and Harris does not establish cause and effect relationship (correlation) and it is mainly a qualitative research. In other words it examines the meaning of participants’ actions and words. In addition, the sample is non-representative since it is a purposive sampling, and therefore it is difficult to generalize. On the other hand, theoretical generalizations can be made and new theories can emerge that potentially can be generalized. Moreover, a significant problem of this study is memory distortions. Probably, some participants do not remember well some events from their childhood. However, a sophisticated scale was used and blind researchers rated the events and therefore biases regarding the results were eliminated. Finally, Brown and Harris’s had an important effect. The finding that most people got depressed because there was something wrong with their in their lives and not due to their personality, totally transformed how depression was seen by general practitioners and psychiatrists in Britain.
A main problem in abnormal psychology is the distinction between normality and abnormality and the validity of diagnosis of psychological disorders. There are many criteria which help psychiatrists to distinguish between abnormal and normal. Some of them are the statistical infrequency, the deviation from ideal mental health, the deviation from social norms and the failure to function adequately. However, each of these criteria has its own limitation. Regarding the validity of diagnosis of psychological disorders, it is important to say that the purpose of diagnosis is to identify a disorder and find the cause (etiology) and provide treatment (and maybe a prognosis). This procedure is typical within the medical world. However, it is more problematic in relation to psychological disorders as in many cases diagnosis is based on symptoms and not objective signs, and the classification systems are far from perfect. The classification systems are merely descriptive and meant at identifying certain disorders. They do not propose origins of disorder or treatments. Some argue that the difficulties stem from the fact that abnormal psychology is a social construction that has evolved over time without prescriptive and regulating definitions.
These problems were examined in another significant study in abnormal psychology conducted by Rosenhan et al. Rosenhan and a group of colleagues aimed to test the validity of psychiatric diagnosis (the DSM-II). The study is considered an important and influential criticism of psychiatric diagnosis. Rosenhan's study was done in two parts. The first part involved the use of healthy associates (including a housewife, a painter and a student) or "pseudopatients" who briefly simulated auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states in various locations in the United States. All but one were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had not experienced any more hallucinations. Hospital staff failed to detect a single pseudopatient. It took between 7 and 52 days for the pseudopatients to be released, with an average of 19 days. This time was used by them to conduct a participant observation of life in the hospital, which involved taking notes. Their writing was seen by the staff as a symptom of their illness. Only the real patients expressed some concern about the pseudopatients. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release. The second part involved asking staff at a psychiatric hospital to detect non-existent "fake" patients during a 3 month period. No fake patients were sent, yet 41 real patients were judged with great confidence to be pseudo by at least one member of staff. The staff falsely identified large numbers of ordinary patients as impostors. The study concluded, "It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals" and also illustrated the dangers of dehumanization and labeling in psychiatric institutions. This study is a strong evidence that there are problems regarding the validity of psychiatric diagnosis and that it is very difficult to distinguish normal from abnormal.
This study had an enormous impact in psychiatry. It sparked off a discussion and revision of diagnostic procedures as well as discussion of the consequences of diagnosis for patients. The development of diagnostic manuals has increased validity and reliability. The method used raises ethical issues but it was justified since the results provided evidence of problems in diagnosis which could benefit others. There is strong deception and there were also serious ethical issues in the follow-up study since the staff thought that impostors would present, but they were real patients and may have not received the treatment they needed.
In conclusion, it is certain that abnormal psychology is one of the most fascinating branches of psychology and many studies have taken place and will also take place in the future examining its phenomena. Brown and Harris and Rosenhan et al studies are only two of a number of studies which can characterized as breakthroughs and contributed to amazing changes in the area of psychology.
by
anastasia26 (student)
