A01:
DEFINTIONS OF ABNORMALITY: A03 evidence:
Rosenhan and Seligman – support for failure to A03:
Socialevaluation
norms change over time, behaviours
function adequately, listed characteristics of once seen as abnormal are now accepted, such
Failure to function adequately – unable to
this definition to be: maladaptiveness, as homosexuality.
cope with everyday life, such as washing, going
unpredictability, loss of control, irrationality
to work etc Deviation from social normal may be due to a
etc.
disorder but it may always just be non-
Deviation from social norms – where your
Practical applications as it helps to diagnose conformist.
behaviour is out of the ordinary in society,
and categorise disorders, statistical infrequency
often making others uncomfortable Different subgroups have different behaviours
commonly used in diagnosis to compare
which are regarded as acceptable and those
Deviation from statistical norms – when you severity of symptoms.
regarded abnormal, it is hard to generalise
numerically differ from the large majority, e.g.
Not easy to find a cut of point for DFSN, e.g. what these are for all groups.
10% of people suffer from anxiety compared to
depression is becoming more common, as more
90% that don’t Not all maladaptive behaviours are considered
people suffer from it this could not be
abnormal, a lot of people engage in
Deviation from ideal mental health – Jahoda’s considered abnormal.
maladaptive behaviours such as drinking or
characteristics of ideal health:
All definitions are culturally specific, different smoking.
Ability to self-actualise cultures have different norms and different
FTFA is context dependant, won’t be
Environmental mastery behaviours are considered acceptable.
considered an abnormal reaction if it is a
Resistance to stress Definitions cannot be generalised.
rational reaction in the circumstances, such as
Autonomy
the death of a loved one, a distressed reaction
Accurate perception of reality
would be the normal response.
Positive attitude towards oneself
DIDMH is subjective and hard to assess how
Idea that if you deviate from these or do not
well a person meets the criteria. Harsh as it is
possess these characteristics you will be
very demanding, people rarely self-actualise so
considered abnormal
unfair to call inability abnormal.
DFSN does not distinguish between desirable
and undesirable, e.g. a high IQ is a deviation
from a statistical norms, but this is desirable.
, A01:
BEHAVIOURAL EXPLANATION OF PHOBIAS: A03
Littleevidence:
albert study – supports classical A03: evaluation
Explanation suggests we learnt phobias through
conditioning in phobias, found that a loud noise a traumatic experience, but most people that
The two process model – explains that phobias
scared a child, the addition of the loud noise have phobias have not experienced a traumatic
are learnt through classical conditioning and
with a white rat conditioned the child to be experience with this, similarly not everyone
maintained through operant conditioning
scared of the rat alone (when originally not). who suffers a traumatic experience develops a
Classical conditioning explains how we learn phobia. Criticism as it ignores other factors such
Little albert study – also supports generalisation as observational learning of phobias within
through association, for example a natural fear
as little albert developed a fear of other white families.
of spiders, spiders are the UCS resulting in fear,
fur animals or objects.
which is the UCS, if the person was trapped in a
Two process model is better at explaining
lift with a spider, the NS of the lift would Little albert study showed extinction to his specific phobias not general phobias such as
become the CS and create the CR of fear. phobia and without continuously claustrophobia which is more likely to be due to
Through generalisation a fear of lifts could reconditioning albert the rat and loud noise irrational thinking and cognitive factors.
become a fear of all small spaces combination his fear was lost. Criticism as it
doesn’t explain how phobias can be Reductionist as it ignores biological factors,
Operant conditioning explains how the phobia
permanent, even in the absence of a traumatic such as biological preparedness (predisposed to
is maintained by reinforcement, reward and
experience. fear certain things as evolutionarily it would
punishment. Negative reinforcement is where
have been beneficial for survival to fear such
the person carries out a behaviour to avoid or Skinner box study – support for operant things). Criticism as it means classical
escape a negative consequence. This avoids conditioning, rat in box, heard a noise through conditioning won’t work the same way to
anxiety but strengthens the avoiding behaviour, speaker and shortly after was electrocuted, condition all phobias e.g. would take longer to
the phobia quickly found that a lever stopped the condition a fear of flowers than a fear of
electrocution. Learnt that when speaker came snakes.
on, to press lever to avoid shock. Avoidance
learning is a type of negative reinforcement. Strength of the explanation is that is has
practical applications of therapies and
treatments of phobias, allows an understanding
of the cause and therefore an accurate way to
treat the root pf the problem.