Raine, Bauchsbaum and LaCasse (1997) ~ Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
The aim of Raine et al.’s study was to investigate both cortical and sub-cortical brain functioning using PET scans in a group of murderers who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). It was hypothesized that these seriously violent individuals had localized brain dysfunction in the pre- frontal cortex, angular gyrus, amygdale, hippocampus, thalamus, and the corpus callosum, brain areas previously linked empirically or conceptually to violence. Conversely, no dysfunction was expected in other brain areas (caudate, putamen, globus pallidus, midbrain, cerebellum), which have been implicated in other psychiatric conditions but which have not been related to violence.
The sample size of this study consisted of 41 murderers (labeled as murders for ease of reference) and 41 controls. The experimental group of this study consisted of 41 participants tried in the state of California (39 men and 2 women) who had been charged with either murder or manslaughter. These subjects were referred to the University of California, Irvine (UCI) imaging centre to obtain evidence relating to a NGRI defense or to capability of understanding the judicial process (incompetence to stand trial), while some who had been found guilty were referred to obtain information for diminished capacity as an ameliorating circumstance in the sentencing phase of the trial. Reasons for referral were very diverse and included schizophrenia (6 cases), history of head injury or organic brain damage (23), history of psychoactive substance abuse (3), affective disorder (2), epilepsy (2), history of hyperactivity and learning disability (3), and passive-aggressive or paranoid personality disorder (2).
The cerebral cortex is commonly described in terms of 4 areas or lobes namely; the prefrontal, parietal, temporal and occipital. In this study, when compared to the controls, the NGRIs were discovered to have less activity in their prefrontal and parietal areas, more activity in their occipital areas and no difference in their temporal areas.
In the study, it was also found that the results from the subcortical areas found less activity in the corpus callosum (which joins the two halves of the brain). They also found an imbalance if activity between the 2 hemispheres in 3 other subcortical structures. In the amygdale and the hippocampus, compared to the controls, the NGRIs had less activity in the left side and more activity in the right side. Also, in the thalamus, the NGRIs had more activity in the right side, though no difference in the left side.
Raine et al. did not believe that that other forms of psychiatric comorbidity can easily account for their findings, because differences in brain functioning in murderers show a different pattern to that observed in other mental disorders. Psychiatric patients show abnormalities in brain structures not found in the murderers, while murders have abnormalities not previously reported in psychiatric patients. For example, whereas, altered functioning has been found in schizophrenics for the lateral temporal cortex (Bauchsbaum et al 1990;DeLisi et al. 1987; Gur and Pearlson 1993), caudate (Siegel et al 1993), and cerebellum (Volkow et al 1992), these structures were unaffected in murderers. Hence, it can be very unreliable to diagnose murders as mentally ill since brain functioning in murderers show a different pattern to that observed in other mental disorders.
Also, reduced prefrontal activity does not seem to be specific to severe violence, as this finding has been observed in a variety of other psychiatric conditions. Thus, it may be very unreliable to say that persons are mentally ill when in actuality they are real murders as prefrontal dysfunction may also represent a deficit common to many forms of psychopathology.
Although the subjects of the study constituted a relatively specific group of violent offenders (all had committed homicide and were pleading NGRI), it must be pointed out that they did not constitute a clinically homogenous group. Specifically, heterogeneity would contribute to type II error (diagnosing a healthy person as sick) and the failure to observe significant group differences in some brain regions of interest. Thus, with heterogeneity, the researchers in Raine et al.’s study may have failed to investigate specific group differences in the brain functions of the persons in the study who claimed to be ‘schizophrenics’, persons who claimed to have personality disorders, problems with drug abuse etc. in their diagnosis of abnormality. Hence, this may have led them to diagnose healthy persons as mentally ill, thus, implying that they made type II errors in their diagnosis and investigation of abnormality.
However, Raine et al. argue that their research supported previous findings about the role of certain brain structures in violent behaviour. They suggested that the difference in activity in the amygdala (which is part of the limbic system) can be seen to support theories of violence that suggest it is due to unusual emotional responses such as lack of fear. On the other hand, in drawing comparisons across imaging studies, it must be borne in mind that some studies have used exactly the same imaging methodology employed in the Raine et al.’s study (e.g. Bauchsbaum et al 1990; Siegel et al 1993, DeLisi et al. 1989), whereas others have employed different methodologies (e.g. Baxter et al 1989; Volkow et al. 1992). As such, strict comparisons across studies are not possible. It must be emphasized that these initial findings (from prior studies) must be viewed with caution before making comparisons from one study to another in diagnosing abnormal behaviour. Hence, there is the possibility that Raine et al.’s diagnosis of abnormal behaviour may be inaccurate since some imaging studies have used exactly the same imaging methodology employed in their study (e.g. Bauchsbaum et al 1990; Siegel et al 1993, DeLisi et al. 1989), whereas others have employed different methodologies (e.g. Baxter et al 1989; Volkow et al. 1992). Also, PET scans are still being developed and therefore, the data obtained from them should be treated with caution. Therefore, if a study prior to Raine et al.’s used the same methodology by using PET scans and Raine et Al. used this study to set out their criteria for diagnosing abnormal behaviour, there is the possibility that the results of the prior PET scan may be inaccurate, therefore, giving rise to the possibility that Raine et al.’s study may be inaccurate and unreliable.
It is also important to question the notion that all murderers are violent. NGRIs are not necessarily charged with murder because of a violent act. The possibility exists, for example, for one to murder someone with poison, which it could be argued is not violent. Dr. Shipman might be an interesting example if murder without violence. Since, Raine et al. held the view that all murderers are violent, this again, could have made their criteria for assessing murderers and abnormal behaviour in their study inaccurate, since not all murderers are violent.
Another problem in categorizing abnormal behaviour in Raine et al.’s study is the fact that the study was biologically reductionist. The study attempts to explain the complex behaviour of murder as a consequence of brain functioning. By doing this, Raine et al. ignore that there are other possible reasons why persons act violently. Brain functioning can be one possible factor why a person may act violently. However, other factors must be taken into account including a person’s social background, their role models, psychological predispositions, learned responses etc. Hence, Raine et al. may have been inaccurate in categorizing abnormal behaviour as they only took the factor of brain functioning into account so as to try to explain the complex behavioural issue of murder.
Freud (1909) ~ Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy (Little Hans)
In order to identify the problems with categorizing and investigating abnormal behaviour in Freud’s study, it is necessary to have a good understanding of his study.
One of the main themes of Freud’s work is the great significance of the first few years of life in the subsequent development of personality. He also believed that children experience emotional conflicts and their future adjustment depends on how well these conflicts are resolved.
Another theme of Freud’s work focuses on the unconscious mind, which is the part of our mind that we are not aware of. Freud believed that the unconscious mind possesses unsettled conflicts and has a powerful effect on our belief and experience. He held the argument that many of these conflicts will appear in our fantasies and dreams, but the conflicts are so threatening that they appear in disguised forms, in the shape of symbols.
The Oedipus complex is an important concept in Psychoanalysis and Freud held the belief that this case study of Little Hans supports this idea of the Oedipus complex.
The aim of Freud’s study was to report the findings of the treatment if a five year old boy known as Little Hans for his phobia of horses. Freud was attempting to demonstrate that the boy’s fear of horses was related to his Oedipus complex.
However the case study was actually carried out by the boy’s father who was a friend and supporter of Freud. Freud probably only met the boy once. The father reported to Freud via correspondence and Freud gave directions as how to deal with the situation based on his interpretations of the father’s reports.
When Hans was almost 5, Hans’ father wrote to Freud explaining his concerns about Hans. He described the main problem as follows: ‘He is afraid a horse will bite him in the street, and this fear seems somehow connected with his having been frightened by a large penis’. The father went on to provide Freud with extensive details of conversations with Hans. Together, Freud and the father tried to understand what the boy was experiencing and undertook to resolve his phobia of horses.
Hans’ anxieties and phobia continued and he was afraid to go out of the house because of his phobia of horses. Hans told his father of a dream/fantasy which his father summarised as follows: ‘In the night there was a big giraffe in the room and a crumpled one: and the big one called out because I took the crumpled one away from it. Then it stopped calling out: and I sat down on top of the crumpled one’. Freud and the father interpreted the dream/fantasy as being a reworking of the morning exchanges in the parental bed. Hans enjoyed getting into his parents bed in a morning but his father often objected (the big giraffe calling out because he had taken the crumpled giraffe - mother - away). Both Freud and the father believed that the long neck of the giraffe was a symbol for the large adult penis. However Hans rejected this idea. When Hans was taken to see Freud, he was asked about the horses he had a phobia of. Hans noted that he didn’t like horses with black bits around the mouth. Freud believed that the horse was a symbol for his father, and the black bits were a moustache. After the interview, the father recorded an exchange with Hans where the boy said ‘Daddy don’t trot away from me!’ Hans' became particularly frightened about horses falling over. He described to his father an incident where he witnessed this happening (later confirmed by his mother). Throughout this analysis the parents continued to record enormous examples of conversations and the father asked many leading questions to help the boy discover the root of his fear.
Hans’ fear of the horses started to decline and Freud believed that two final fantasies marked a change in Hans and led to a resolution of his conflicts and anxieties.
Firstly, Hans had described a fantasy where he was married to his mother and was playing with his own children. In this fantasy he had promoted his father to the role of grandfather.
In the second fantasy, he described how a plumber came and first removed his bottom and widdler and then gave him another one of each, but larger.
Freud believed that the findings from the case study of Little Hans supported his theories of child development.
In particular, the case study provided support for his theory of the Oedipus Complex in which the young boy develops an intense sexual love for his mother and because of this, he sees his father as a rival and wants to get rid of him. Freud believed that much of Hans’ problem came from the conflict caused by this wish. The final fantasy of being married to his mother supported this idea.
According to Freud the cause of Little Hans’ phobia was related to his Oedipus complex. Little Hans’, it was argued, was afraid of horses because the horse was a symbol for his father. For example, the black bits around the horses face reminded the boy of his father’s moustache, the blinkers reminded him of his father’s glasses and so on. Freud believed that as Little Hans was having sexual fantasies about his mother he feared his father’s retaliation. Little Hans therefore displaced his fear of his father onto horses who reminded him of his father.
However, the process of categorizing and investigating abnormal behaviour has been prone to a number of criticisms and disadvantages which can be reflected in Freud’s study.
A major problem with Freud’s categorization of abnormal behaviour in his study is that other explanations can be found for little Hans’s phobia. For example, a psychoanalyst called Bowlby held the argument that Hans’ phobia could be explained in terms of the attachment theory. Bowlby held the belief that most of Hans' anxiety was caused by threats from the mother to desert the family. Indeed, Hans' parents did eventually split up.
A behaviourist explanation would be simply that Hans was classically conditioned to fear horses. In other words, Hans witnessed a horse fall and collapse in the street and then he developed a phobia as a result of this experience.
Gross cites an article by Slap (an American psychoanalyst) who argues that Hans’ phobia may have another explanation. Shortly after the beginning of the phobia (after Hans had seen the horse fall down), Hans had to have his tonsils removed. After this, the phobia worsened and it was then that he specifically identified white horses as the ones he was afraid of. Slap suggests that the masked and gowned surgeon (all in white) may have significantly contributed to Hans’ fears.
Hence, these other explanations that can be provided for Hans’ phobia reinforces that the diagnosis of abnormal behaviour is oftentimes unreliable and inaccurate.
In addition, Freud only met Hans once and all of his information came from Hans’ father. Hans’ father was an admirer of Freud’s theories and tried to put them into practice with his son. This means that he would have been biased in the way he interpreted and reported Hans’ behaviour to Freud. Hence, this could imply that Freud’s use of the Oedipus complex to explain Hans’ phobia was inaccurate and unreliable since he was provided with his information from Hans’ father. This could also have made the study lack validity.
Another problem was that the information supplied to Freud was second hand information, from the father of Little Hans rather than from him. The problem is that we cannot get the real picture of what Hans was dreaming about because it did not come from the primary source. Thus, this suggests that Hans’ father’s interpretations and Freud’s interpretations of Hans’ problem could be wrong, thus, making the explanations and diagnosis for Hans’ behaviour inaccurate and unreliable. Hence, this further emphasizes the notion that psychiatrists cannot reliably diagnose abnormal behaviour.
A further problem, which was particularly seen in the Freud’s study of Little Hans, is the issue of demand characteristics. The father of Little Hans may have tried to exaggerate or even guess what Hans was dreaming about in order to please the psychologist, Freud. Another thing is that the father of Little Hans may have put things into his mind that normal little children such as him would not really think about. These notions may imply that Freud’s diagnosis of Hans’ phobia being linked to his Oedipus complex may be wrong, since the data provided to Freud by Hans’ father may be corrupted. Thus, if the data is incorrect, then it will lead to inaccurate interpretations of Hans’ behaviour.
Furthermore, there is evidence of the presence of leading questions in the way that Hans’ father questioned Hans about his feelings. An example of this can be seen when Hans’ father asked him if when he say the horse fall over, if he thought about him. The leading questions would suggest that Hans’ father ‘put words in his mouth’ on several occasions. Hence, these leading questions may have affected the way Hans’ father interpreted the way Hans’ felt and this may have caused him to provide incorrect interpretations to Freud, who in turn would categorize and investigate the behaviour of Hans inaccurately. Hence, Freud would have provided inaccurate explanations for Hans’ behaviour. Therefore, his explanation that Hans’ phobia supported his Oedipus complex theory could be inaccurate also.
Another problem with Freud’s categorization and investigation if abnormal behaviour in his study is that the idea of the Oedipus complex is ethnocentric because he made the assumption that all boys must experience this stage. However, Freud was speaking about a particular group of people at a particular period of time in history. Many other cultures as well as ours do not possess families consisting of a Mother and Father living together in one home. Freud, for example, argued that through the Oedipus complex boys identify with their fathers and this established their sexual identification and if this process could not take place, Freud considered that the young child would be likely to grow up homosexual. However, evidence does not support this argument.
In addition, another problem is that abnormal behaviour is difficult to generalize and compare since many cases are unique. For instance, Freud’s case study only relates to one individual and therefore, precautions must be taken while generalizing from the findings. There is no way of assessing how typical Little Hans is and, therefore, it is questionable whether the study is unique to the relationship between Little Hans, his father and Freud or whether it can be generalized to other cases.
b. What do these studies tell us about abnormal behaviour? (10 marks)
Rosenhan, D.L. (1973) ~ On being sane in insane places
The study suggests that once the patients were labeled as ‘abnormal’, the label stuck. Furthermore, because of this, it was learnt that the hospital staff were not able to perceive the pseudo patients in isolation from their label and the fact that they were in a psychiatric hospital, and this raises serious doubts about the reliability and validity of psychiatric diagnosis.
It was discovered that psychiatric labels tend to stick in a way that medical labels do not and that everything a patient does is interpreted in accordance with the diagnostic label once it has been applied. Everything the pseudo patients did or said was interpreted as typical of a schizophrenic (or maniac depressive) patient. This means that the situations that the pseudo patients were in had a powerful impact on the way that they were judged.
It was learnt that the normal behaviours of the pseudo patients were often seen as aspects of their supposed illness. For instance, the nursing records for three of the pseudo patients (“Patient engages in writing behaviour”) illustrated that their writing was seen as an aspect of their pathological behaviour. Also when a group of patients were waiting outside the cafeteria half an hour before lunchtime a psychiatrist pointed out to a group of registrars (trainee psychiatrists) that such behaviour was a feature of an oral-acquisitive syndrome. Hence, this behaviour was interpreted as pathological also. However, a more likely explanation would be that the patients had little to do, and one of the few things to anticipate in a psychiatric hospital is a meal. Thus, this reinforces Rosenhan’s argument that psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane as the study demonstrates this.
It was learnt that there is an enormous overlap in the behaviours of the sane and the insane. Everyone feels depressed sometimes, everyone has moods, everyone becomes angry etc, but in the context of a psychiatric hospital, these everyday human experiences and behaviours were seen as pathological.
It was also learnt that patients in psychiatric hospitals are ‘conditioned’ to behave in certain ways by the environment they find themselves in. Their behaviour is shaped by the environment (nurses assume that signs of boredom are signs of anxiety for example) and if the environment does not allow them to display ‘normal’ behaviour it will be difficult for them to be seen as normal. An example of the environment hindering the pseudo patients from displaying normal behaviour was when the staff would ignore the pseudo patients’ attempts at starting conversations. Hence, this could lead to problems relating to accurately investigating and categorizing abnormal behaviour.
Rosenhan describes pseudo patients going to flush their medication down the toilet and finding pills already there. This would suggest that so long as the patients were not causing anyone any trouble, very little checks were made. Thus, it was learnt that as long as the patients were co-operative, then their behaviour went unnoticed.
It was also learnt that the experience of hospitalisation for the pseudo patients was one of depersonalisation and powerlessness. An example of this can be seen when the pseudo patients in the hospital were treated as though they did not exist.
The table below shows the responses to staff towards the pseudo patients’ requests.
Responses of staff towards pseudo patients’ requests
It was also learnt that powerlessness and depersonalisation were depicted in the ways in which the patients were underprivileged of possessing many human rights such as freedom of movement and privacy. Also, medical records were open for all staff members to access, regardless of their status or therapeutic relationship with the patient. In addition, personal hygiene was monitored and many of the toilets did not contain doors. Some of the ward orderlies would be brutal to patients in full view of other patients but would stop as soon as another staff member approached. This indicated that staff were credible witnesses but patients were not. As a result, patients were deindividualised and depersonalized.
It was also learnt that about 90 per cent of the time, the nurses remained in the ward offices and the number of times medical staff entered the ward, and the amount of time exhausted with psychiatrists, psychologists, registrars and so forth was, on average, under seven minutes per day.
In addition, it was learnt that doctors and psychiatrists are more likely to make a type two error (that is, more likely to call a healthy person sick) than a type one error (that is, diagnosing a sick person as healthy).
Thigpen and Cleckley (1954)~ A case of multiple personality
In this study, it was learnt that environmental factors, particularly traumatic events, can profoundly affect our mental health. Whilst there may be convincing evidence that there is a genetic predisposition to certain mental health disorders, there is no doubt that they are triggered by events in people’s lives. In material published later than this study, information is given about a number of traumatic events that Eve had experienced. She had seen a man drown, and another man cut into pieces by a machine at a lumber mill, and had witnessed her mother very badly injured. There is little doubt that such events would have an effect on the mental health of a child even if you do not accept the diagnosis of MPD.
In addition, it was learnt that Eve’s fragmentation if her personality had been to protect herself from things she could not bear.
It was also learnt that abnormal behaviour will cause social discomfort to those who witness such behaviour. For example, in the study, Eve White’s second personality, Eve black, denied the relationship to Eve White’s daughter except that of an unconcerned bystander. To her husband, daughter and parents, her unpleasant behaviour, harshness and occasional acts of violence were explained in terms of ‘unaccountable fits of temper in a woman who was habitually gentle and considerate.
Furthermore, it was learnt that Eve White was not psychotic since she showed no other symptoms of psychosis. Hence, this would imply that Eve was not schizophrenic since schizophrenia is a type of psychosis where contact with reality and insight are impaired. Other symptoms of schizophrenia can include hallucinations and delusions. Hence, it was learnt that schizophrenia is different from MPD.
It was also learnt that maybe our personalities are not as stable or fixed as we like to believe. In everyday speech, we refer to changes in personality with phrases like ‘he’s a new man’ or she’s not herself’ or ‘he’s been reborn’, so perhaps our personalities are not a stable or fixed as we like to believe.
Thigpen and Cleckley remained convinced that they had witnessed 3 personalities within the same body. Hence, it was learnt that MPD does actually exist.
It was also learnt that, the personalities present in a person suffering from MPD are indeed different in nature. An example of this can be seen when psychological tests were conducted on Eve White and on Eve Black. Hence, different results were gained for both personalities:
IQ Scores ~ Eve White obtained an IQ of 110 and Eve Black 104Memory Test
Results ~ Eve white had a superior memory function than Eve black
Rorschach test (ink blot test) and drawings of human figures results ~ The profile of Eve Black was far healthier than Eve White. Eve Black was regressive whilst Eve White was repressive, showing obsessive compulsive traits, rigidity and an inability to deal with her hostility.
Thus, the above results prove that MPD does indeed exist. The study, of itself, proves that MPD does exist and it can be treated and cured.
Raine, Bauchsbaum and LaCasse (1997) ~ Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
In this study, it was learnt that compared to the controls, the NGRIs were found to have less activity in their prefrontal and parietal areas, more activity in the occipital areas and no difference in their temporal areas.
It was also learnt that the results from the subcortical areas found less activity in the corpus callosum (which joins the two halves of the brain). Also found, was an imbalance of activity between the two hemispheres in three other subcortical structures, In the amygdale and the hippocampus, compared the controls, the NGRIs had less activity in the left side and more activity in the right side. Also, in the thalamus, the NGRIs had more activity in the right side, though no difference in the left side.
In addition, it was learnt that Raine et al.’s research supports previous findings about the role of certain brain structures in violent behaviour. It was learnt that the difference in activity in the amygdala (which is a part of the limbic system) can be seen to support theories of violence that suggest that violence is due to unusual emotional responses such as lack of fear.
It was also learnt that there were differences in corpus callosum activity between NGRIs and the controls. It was learnt that people with a severed corpus callosum show that they can have inappropriate emotional expression and an inability to grasp long term implications of a situation.
This study ‘reduces’the behaviour of murder to a measure of metabolic activity in the brain. However, it was learnt and as Raine would no doubt agree, murder is a complex act which is likely to be affected by a number of social and individual variables and cannot be explained simply in terms of metabolic activity.
In support of the study, it could be argued that Raine has identified a very important difference between the brains of murderers and non-murderers which will no doubt generate more research.
It was also learnt that is difficult to draw conclusions about the causes of murder by investigating differences in brain activity. It was learnt that it is not possible to conclude that the differences in brain activity did cause the individuals to commit murder and the results definitely do not suggest that violence is determined by biology alone. Neither do the results tell us what caused the differences in brain activity in the first place and this could be genetic, biological or environmental. It was learnt that the study attempts to explain the complex behaviour of murder as a consequence of brain functioning. It was found that Raine et al. ignore that there are other possible reasons why persons act violently. Brain functioning can be one possible factor why a person may act violently. However, other factors must be taken into account including a person’s social background, their role models, psychological predispositions, learned responses etc.
It was learnt that it is also important to question the notion that all murderers are violent. NGRIs are not necessarily charged with murder because of a violent act. The possibility exists, for example, for one to murder someone with poison, which it could be argued is not violent. Dr. Shipman might be an interesting example if murder without violence. Since, Raine et al. held the view that all murderers are violent, this again, could have made their criteria for assessing murderers and abnormal behaviour in their study inaccurate, since not all murderers are violent.
Freud (1909) ~ Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy (Little Hans)
One of the main themes of Freud’s work is the great significance of the first few years of life in the subsequent development of personality. He also believed that children experience emotional conflicts and their future adjustment depends on how well these conflicts are resolved.
Another theme of Freud’s work focuses on the unconscious mind, which is the part of our mind that we are not aware of. Freud believed that the unconscious mind possesses unsettled conflicts and has a powerful effect on our belief and experience. He held the argument that many of these conflicts will appear in our fantasies and dreams, but the conflicts are so threatening that they appear in disguised forms, in the shape of symbols.
It was learnt that the Oedipus complex is an important concept in psychoanalysis and Freud held the belief that this case study of Little Hans supports this idea of the Oedipus complex.
It was also learnt that children pass through five stages of development, known as the psychosexual stages (because Freud emphasized the role of sexuality as the basic drive in development). These stages are: the oral stage, the anal stage, the phallic stage, the latency period and finally the genital stage. It is the first three stages which take place in the first five years of life of a child.
It was learnt that the phallic stage, from three to five years old was the stage where the child's sexual identification was formed. It was learnt that during this stage, a young boy would experience what he called the Oedipus complex. This would present the child with highly disturbing conflicts, which had to be settled by the child identifying with the same-sexed parent.
In addition, it was learnt that during the phallic stage, the young boy develops an intense sexual love for his mother. Because of this intense sexual love for his mother, he sees his father as a rival, and wants to get rid of him. However, the father, is far bigger and more powerful than the young boy, and so the child develops a fear that, seeing him as a rival, his father will castrate him. Since it is impossible to live with the continual castration-threat anxiety formed by this conflict, the young boy creates a mechanism for coping with it, using a defence mechanism known as 'identification with the aggressor'. He emphasizes all the ways that he is comparable to his father, adopting his father's attitudes, mannerisms and actions, feeling that if his father sees him as similar, he will not feel hostile towards him.
Furthermore, it was learnt that the findings from the case study of Little Hans advocated Freud’s theories of child development.
It was discovered that the case study provided support for Freud’s theory of the Oedipus Complex in which the young boy develops an intense sexual love for his mother and because of this, he sees his father as a rival and wants to get rid of him. It was learnt that much of Hans’ problem came from the conflict caused by this desire. The final desire of being married to his mother advocated Freud’s idea.
It was learnt that the cause of Little Hans’ phobia was linked to Freud’s Oedipus complex. Freud held the argument that Little Hans’ was afraid of horses because the horse was a symbol for his father. For example the black bits around the horses face reminded the boy of his father’s moustache, the blinkers reminded him of his fathers glasses and so on. Freud believed that as Little Hans was having sexual fantasies about his mother he feared his father’s retaliation. Therefore, it was learnt that Little Hans placed his fear of his father onto horses which served to remind him of his father.
Freud argued that Hans was not in any way an abnormal child. He stated that unlike most other children of the time, Hans was able to communicate fears and wishes that many children do not have the opportunity to express. It was learnt that Hans was able to resolve conflicts and anxieties that would remain unresolved in other children since he was able to communicate his wishes and fears.
According to Freud, it was also learnt that there is no sharp distinction between neurotic and normal, and that many people constantly pass between normal and neurotic states. This can be demonstrated in the case study of Little Hans’ phobia where Hans’ was in a neurotic state and then returned to being normal after he resolved his conflicts.
In addition, it was also discovered that abnormal behaviour is difficult to generalize and compare since many cases are unique. For instance, Freud’s case study only relates to one individual and therefore, precautions must be taken while generalizing from the findings. There is no way of assessing how typical Little Hans is and, therefore, it is questionable whether the study is unique to the relationship between Little Hans, his father and Freud or whether it can be generalized to other cases.
c. Is anybody ‘normal’? Give reasons for your answer. (10 marks)
Abnormal behaviour is defined differently depending on the context; for example, in legal institutions insanity is a term used to refer a person's inability to understand the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his or her acts. From psychology's point of view, if the behavior is deviant, maladaptive, and/or personally distressing, it is considered abnormal behaviour.
There are several different ways in which it is possible to define ‘abnormal’ as opposed to our ideas of what is ‘normal’. One way is the statistical approach which is based on the premise that abnormal behaviour is statistically rare. For example anxiety can be assessed using Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The mean score for trait anxiety is 40 and people who achieve over 55 are seen as statistically rare as only 1 in 50 score that high. Therefore those with high scores are seen as deviant from the greater majority of the population.
The statistical approach helps to address what is meant by normal in a statistical context, but it still does not help us define the term. There are many people who have high levels of anxiety, but would still not be categorised as clinically abnormal — it is also equally true that people with very low scores on the anxiety scale are also statistically abnormal. The statistical approach was used by Thigpen and Cleckley in their study when they conducted psychometric (i.e. I.Q and memory tests) tests on the personalities of Eve White and Eve Black.
There are many different models of abnormal behaviour, which give different explanations for 'mental disorders'. Here are the different models and brief descriptions of each model’s theory on 'mental disorders'.
-
Medical/neurobiological model - This a biological approach that views mental disorders as an 'illness' or a 'disease', which has been caused through physical illness or an imbalance in bodily processes. This model can be used to explain the behaviour of the persons claiming NGRI in Raine’s study as the study was reductionist and it ‘reduces’the behaviour of murder to a measure of metabolic activity in the brain.
-
Psychodynamic model - This approach was developed by Freud (1915-1918) to emphasize the internal dynamics and conflicts that occur at an unconscious level. Freud argued that the forces that are responsible for behaviour occur mostly at the unconscious level. Behavioural disorders are symbolic expressions of unconscious conflicts between the id, ego and superego. Freud believed children pass through a series of psychosexual stages. As they pass through each stage they experience conflict between their desire for immediate satisfaction and the restrictions placed on them by reality. Freud used the psychodynamic model to explain and to treat the phobia of little Hans.
-
Behavioural model - this theory views abnormal behaviour is learnt in the same way as other behaviour is through stimulus-response mechanisms and operant conditioning.
-
Cognitive model - this approach looks at how people receive, store, retrieve and process information. The logic behind this model is that the 'thinking' processes between stimulus and response are responsible for the 'feeling' component of response.
-
Humanistic model - This model views behaviour as controlled by the decisions that people make about their lives based on their perceptions of the world.
Social Deviance is emphasised by some psychologists as a measure of abnormal behaviour. This approach would see people who behave in a socially deviant way that makes other people uncomfortable should be regarded as abnormal. However there are problems inherent in this approach. For instance German citizens who objected to and spoke out against Nazi atrocities were seen as being socially deviant. It is also true to say that what is regarded as deviant varies from culture to culture. Kwakiutl indians burn valuable blankets in order to cast shame on their enemies, behaviour that would seem decidedly odd in Western culture. In the study of Thigpen and Cleckley, Eve White’s behaviour would be regarded as socially deviant since her change in personality would have made her family members and friends very uncomfortable around her as they would not be expecting these sudden changes in personalities which would mean sudden changes in her moods also. In addition, in Freud’s study, Hans’ behaviour would be seen as socially deviant as most normal people do not have phobias, most people at the time in which the study was conducted would have found his behaviour odd and the presence of his phobia probably made his parents uncomfortable with his situation of him fearing horses.
So far these approaches discussed only say little about what is meant by ‘abnormal’. Abnormality is a complex concept that is difficult to define precisely. Abnormality can take many different forms and there is no single feature that can help us distinguish abnormality from normality. Rosenhan and Seligman (1989) propose seven major features of abnormality that appear in abnormal behaviour as opposed to normal behaviour. The more of these features that are possessed by the individual, the more likely they are to be considered abnormal.
Rosenhan and Seligman’s Seven Features of abnormality include:
-
Suffering: Most abnormal individuals (such as those suffering with anxiety disorders) report that they are suffering. However normal people can suffer at times in their lives and some abnormal individuals, such as those with personality disorders, treat others badly but do not appear to suffer themselves.
-
Maladaptiveness: Maladaptive behaviour is behaviour that prevents an individual from achieving major life goals, from having fulfilling relationships with others or working effectively (for instance an agrophobic will not venture out of the house due to fear).
-
Vividness and unconventionality: Vivid and unconventional behaviour is relatively unusual. It is behaviour that differs substantially from the way in which you would expect normal people to behave in similar situations. However there are many people who behave in this way that are not deemed to be abnormal.
-
Unpredictability and loss of control: With most people, you normally predict what they will do in known situations. In contrast, abnormal behaviour is often highly unpredictable and uncontrolled and inappropriate for the situation.
-
Irrationality and incomprehensibility: One of the characteristics of abnormal behaviour is that there appears to be no good reason why the person should choose to behave in that way.
-
Observer discomfort: Our social behaviour is governed by a number of unspoken rules about behaviour, such as the way we maintain eye contact or personal space. When others break these rules we experience discomfort. But this does not necessarily indicate abnormal behaviour, for instance different cultures may well have different social rules about behaviour.
-
Violation of moral and ideal standards: When moral standards are violated, this behaviour may be judged to be abnormal
One of the problems with using the seven features of abnormality is that they rely on subjective judgements and it can be quite difficult to decide which of the features are actually present in a person’s behaviour.
The study of Rosenhan, D.L. (1973): On being sane in insane places, the study of Thigpen and Cleckley (1954): A case of multiple personality, the study of Raine, Bauchsbaum and LaCasse (1997) :Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and the study of Freud (1909) :Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy (Little Hans) could all be related to Rosenhan and Seligman’s Seven Features of Abnormality.
In the study of Thigpen and Cleckley (1954):’A case of multiple personality’, Eve White’s behaviour can be defined as abnormal in relation to Rosenhan and Seligman’s Seven Features of Abnormality since her behaviour had characteristics of being maladaptive and unconventional (her social relationships suffered as can be seen with her relationship with the relationship she possessed with her family when she was Eve Black ~Eve Black denied marriage to a man who she despised, and denied any relationship with Eve White’s daughter except that of an unconcerned bystander. To her husnand, daughter and parents, her unpleasant behaviour, harshness and occasional acts of violence were explained in terms of ‘unaccountable fits of temper in a woman who was habitually gentle and considerate’), she was suffering (as can be seen with the severe and blinding headaches and blackouts that she suffered while experiencing Multiple Personality Disorder [MPD]) and she lost control of herself (as can be seen when the different personalities she possessed that interchanged consistently. This was illustrated in the article about Eve’s MPD where it was mentioned: ‘After a tense moment of silence, her hands [Eve’s hands] dropped, and the therapist observed a ‘quick reckless smile’ and in a bright voice, she said: ‘hi there, Doc!’ To the therapist, it seemed that the usually conventional and retiring Eve White had changed into a carefree person. She also seemed to have a very different physical presence in terms of manner, gestures and eye movements. When asked her name, she immediately replied that she was Eve Black.’)
In the study of Raine, Bauchsbaum and LaCasse (1997) : Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by Positron Emission Tomography (PET), the behaviour of the NGRIs can also be explained as being abnormal by utilizing Rosenhan and Seligman’s Seven Features of Abnormality since they were suffering and their behaviour was their behaviour violated moral and ideal standards. The NGRIs were suffering internally as they had problems with their brain functions for example, they possessed reduced activity in their prefrontal cortex and if they really were not insane and if they were really murders, their behaviour would violate moral and ideal standards as it is ethically wrong to murder other persons. It is also wrong for one to be sane and to murder other persons and also wrong for one to claim NGRI in order to protect oneself.
In the study of Freud (1909) : Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy (Little Hans), the behaviour of Little Hans can be viewed as being abnormal in relation to Rosenhan and Seligman’s Seven Features of Abnormality since he was suffering (as can be seen in the illustration of his phobia for horses. A behaviourist explanation would be simply that Hans was classically conditioned to fear horses. In other words, Hans witnessed a horse fall and collapse in the street and then he developed a phobia as a result of this experience.)
In the study of Rosenhan, D.L. (1973): On being sane in insane places, the behaviour of the pseudo patients was classified as abnormal by the staff at the respective hospitals. The psychiatrists probably thought that the behaviours of the pseudo patients were vivid and unconventional, unpredictable and irrational and incomprehensible (as can be seen when staff interpreted the pseudo patients’ writing behaviour as pathological and abnormal and also when one psychiatrist probably thought that it was abnormal, unconventional, unpredictable, irrational and incomprehensible, when he saw the pseudo patients waiting for lunch at the cafeteria before lunchtime. He attributed this behaviour as being characteristic to Oral-Acquisitive Syndrome.)
Hence, all the behaviours present in the above studies can be seen as abnormal according to Rosenhan and Seligman’s Seven Features of Abnormality.
It is very to hard say that YES some people are normal or NO we are all different individuals and no one is really normal. To one extent some may say that some people are normal, for example in the Rosenhan study the nurses obviously felt that those who were in the hospitals were abnormal. It could also be said that those who were abnormal and normal could not be differentiated therefore this could prove that there is no difference between normal and abnormal.
Maybe society feels that those who are not like the majority of society should be classed as abnormal, that is why there is such a thing as abnormality. In Rosenhan’s study not everyone has Schizophrenia, in Freud’s study, not everyone possesses phobias, in Raine’s study, not everyone has problems with the metabolic activity in their brain and in Thigpen and Cleckley’s study not everyone has multiple personality. Therefore, it can be said that it is abnormal behaviour. So, therefore, if you look at it this way then it can be said that some people are normal and others are abnormal.
On the other hand it could be criticized that the woman in Thigpen and Cleckley’s study could have been only acting just to please the psychologist and therefore, it can be argued that there is no such thing as this Multiple Personality Disorder. This could then lead on to say that there is no such thing as abnormality.
In Freud’s study it is hard to distinguish the difference between normal and abnormal. Freud himself stated that there is no sharp distinction between neurotic and the normal and that many people constantly pass between normal and neurotic states. Little Hans may have had these dreams and other little children his age may not have had dreams like his, telling us that he is abnormal, whereas the dreams that he may said to have been having may not necessarily have been true, because the reports of these dreams were second-hand data (provided to Freud by Hans’ father and not by Hans directly) so this shows that there may have not been any abnormality in Little Hans and it was all a scenario of Hans’ father exaggerating.
There are also other studies that help to show us whether anybody is actually 'normal'. One clear study is the one that was done by Deregowski. The split style drawing may have been common to the African people but was seen as an abnormal thing from the westerners, therefore, there is the argument that the Africans may be abnormal just because they perceive things differently. So, again, it is hard to say what is normal and what is abnormal in society. As mentioned before, Freud himself stated that there is no sharp distinction between neurotic and the normal and that many people constantly pass between normal and neurotic states. I personally feel that there is no such thing as normality and you cannot really specify a normal person from an abnormal person, some people are just different from others.